Said Trump, quoted by Michael Goodwin in a NY Post column titled "Trump won’t definitively say he still backs Bannon."
What struck me most was not that Trump is distancing himself from Bannon or — as I would put it — showing his own sensitivity over accusations that Bannon is somehow Trump's brain. What got me is that he's still saying "crooked Hillary." He's President of the United States. She's reduced to simple citizenship and resorting to posing in pink shoes to get attention. Why is he still hurling the epithet? Maybe it's part of the overall argument that nothing can change him....
I've got to be me was big campaign theme. The old Sammy Davis Jr. song just started playing in my head. I google Trump I’ve Gotta Be Me and get an article titled "Trump: 'I’ve Gotta Be Me'":
“You know, I am who I am. It’s me. I don’t want to change. Everyone talks about, ‘Oh, well, you’re going to pivot, you’re going to.’ I don’t want to pivot. I mean, you have to be you.”That seemed like a perfect quote to add to this post, and then I kept reading the linked article and was amazed to see that he said that on the day he added Steve Bannon to his staff:
Later in the day came an announcement about the shake-up of his campaign staff.So remember, Trump brought Bannon in because Trump wanted to be Trump and Manafort had been trying to change him. In that light, reread Trump's new statement. It's the same point: Trump is Trump and no one else's creation. Is that a failure to say he backs Bannon or just a restatement of what Bannon always was to Trump — a man who reinforces Trump's determination to be Trump?
Donald Trump, following weeks of gnawing agitation over his advisers’ attempts to temper his style, moved late Tuesday to overhaul his struggling campaign by rebuffing those efforts and elevating two longtime associates who have encouraged his combative populism.Paul Manafort – who was ostensibly brought in to “professionalize” Trump’s campaign and image – will apparently stay on, but will obviously be boxed in by these changes....
Stephen Bannon, a former banker who runs the influential conservative outlet Breitbart News and is known for his fiercely anti-establishment politics, has been named the Trump campaign’s chief executive. Kellyanne Conway, a veteran Republican pollster who has been close to Trump for years, will assume the role of campaign manager.
पोस्ट्स
११८ टिप्पण्या:
If Bannon is forced out and Cohn's group takes over it will not end well for Trump. He has a lot of non-ideological support from American voters but if he just becomes another republican that acts like all the other republicans, i.e. he becomes a democrat in office like Bush, his support will be in the 20's unless he can get democrats to join him.
And letting the neocons run foreign policy?
Yeah I hope he is still listening to us because that is not what we voted for. Sounds like Kushner and Cohn are the wormtongue of this story.
"Reduced to simple citizenship"? I'm simply a citizen, and I didn't commit grotesque crimes and accept blatant bribes. The fact that she is crooked needs to be mentioned over and over until she's in jail, and not a moment before.
But don't tell me that being like the rest of us - a "simple citizen" - is punishment enough for her. Screwwwwww that.
A good aide doesn't upstage the boss.
My question -- much simpler -- was "Why is Trump saying shit like that to the New York Post?"
No matter what he really thinks about Bannon; no matter what he plans to do with Bannon (fire him, demote him, promote him, invite him to go golfing next weekend, etc.), what is the point of making a statement like that to the press?
There may be some sort of answer; such as that Trump was messaging somebody (Bannon, Kushner, somebody else), but even then it is such a weird way for a President to operate.
I honestly think that Trump is used to using the press as a combination social media site and personal therapist. Running shit up the flagpole, to see who salutes.
How can you listen to those bizarre "John Miller/John Baron" recordings and not think that the guy has a serious screw loose when it comes to being chatty with the press?
Achilles is right. The last thing we need is Schwarzenegger II.
Every day another MSM-DNC narrative dies in the cold light of alternative facts being revealed. One may then assume the DNC mouthpieces drawing salaries as "reporters" usually offer only "first facts," otherwise known as bad hypotheses. Then when the real facts are revealed (like Bannon's influence being much less than total) the narrative (Trump's a nationalist!) must be revised. Although people laughed at it at the time, Conway's choice of "alternative facts" as term of art might have been very deliberate and may even prove to have more substance than so many of the DNC-Media "narratives" into which they keep trying to squeeze current events.
The fact is nobody really knew what Trump would do as President. He was largely unpredictable. Those of us who voted for him accepted this in exchange for a few important items.
Block crooked Hillary
A conservative replacement for Scalia on the SC
Disrupt the Progressives
Shake up the Republican Party and DC.
Trump appears to be an asshole. If that's who he is, I don't care as long as he does what he said he was going to do. I don't recall him saying he was going to pick fights with Assad and Kim.
Draining the swamp begins at home.
Qwinn said...
"Reduced to simple citizenship"? I'm simply a citizen, and I didn't commit grotesque crimes and accept blatant bribes. The fact that she is crooked needs to be mentioned over and over until she's in jail, and not a moment before.
You mouth-breathers don't really expect to be taken seriously on bullshit like this, do you? It's one thing, to be sitting around with your union buddies talking about who should be in jail. It's quite another, to be the President of the United States, nominating federal judges and selecting an Attorney General; acting as the nation's chief law enforcement officer and commander in chief.
At some point, the world of Fox News ends, and the serious business of criminal justice begins.
I'm going to take the position, ut ratio proposita, that there is good cause to suspect criminal activity on the part of Mrs. Clinton. The BEST way to insure a successful prosecution in her case from the perspective of the POTUS is to remain quiet and allow the Attorney General to work the case. And probably the best way (for the president, at least) to screw it up is to pop off with politically-motivated trashtalk about her.
But I was assured that Trump was just an empty vessel that was being sinisterly puppeteered by Bannon and Vladimir Putin.
Brett Eaton Ellis is quite taken with Trumps unpresidential style.
He calls him the disrupter.
B.E.E. - Sam Outlaw - 3/27/17 http://www.PodcastOne.com/pg/jsp/program/episode.jsp?programID=592&pid=1721591#.WO5OODCHDPk.twitter via @PodcastOne
Uhh....can we rerun the 2016 election with a Bannon/Miller ticket against a Kushner/Kushner ticket? I know it'd take me about a millisecond to make up my mind.
I'd be very happy if Trump changed certain aspects of his public persona, but I don't expect it to happen. Even if he did, the Trump-haters would hate the "new" Trump as much as they hate the current one. Vide Nixon (and Hillary for that matter).
Law #1 from Robert Green's brilliant The 48 Laws of Power: Never outshine the master.
http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.ca/2013/10/law-1-never-outshine-master.html
Bob Boyd @1056am-- That's exactly it. I didn't vote for him, though. Couldn't stomach the possible unknowns. So thanks to those of you who held your noses and did so.
Well if he's going to keep calling her "crooked Hillary" then he should be having his DOJ pursue a case against her. Unless of course he never believed she was crooked and was just faking it to rile up the base.
As for distancing from Bannon, that's fairly cold--I could understand a statement to the effect of "we have differences on direction so I have to let him go" which is understandable (shakeups happen all the time in White Houses) but to pretend like Bannon wasn't a key part of his victory is false and ungrateful. Bannon was pushing the Trump candidacy from the beginning with the nationalist segment of the GOP base, and that made a difference in the primaries. He may have "only" come officially on board in August 2016, but that period is the most important in the presidential contest.
There are dignified, face-saving ways to let go of someone who isn't working out, but this is not one of them. It also sends a message to others on the team, and not a good message.
Is Hillary no longer crooked? Private citizenship has transformed her basic character?
"I'd be very happy if Trump changed certain aspects of his public persona, but I don't expect it to happen. Even if he did, the Trump-haters would hate the "new" Trump as much as they hate the current one. Vide Nixon (and Hillary for that matter)."
His most unmoving base of support is his "Bannonite" base. They may not be my cup of tea on some issues (though I do like their anti-interventionist stance on foreign policy, which I'd rather not see go) but they are crucial to Trump. If he thinks the "globalist" wing of the GOP (e.g., McCain, Graham) will be an even trade, he's sorely mistaken. That group will drop him flat. And the Dems will never trust him.
Losing an election does cause a person to change from being a lying crook to a model citizen. She's out looking for the next scam. Maybe the LLR who frequents this site could guide her in this endeavor.
Look, unless and until the entire Benghazi gun running debacle, the corrupt pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, and paying the price for inexcusably inept handling of Classified data on her home email server is fully and completely investigated and called to account, no, Hillary should not be left alone. Period. End of story.
Trump has good instincts, I feel good about Trump. Also, I don't think Trump is an asshole as some liberals and crooked Dems project.
Hillary is still a crook regardless of her current status.
Maybe Trump is still calling her "crooked Hillary" because Hillary has not quietly gone away but rather seems to be positioning herself for the 2020 Democrat primaries.
It's a reminder what the election was about.
So thanks to those of you who held your noses and did so.
Some of us didn't have to hold our noses, as we have anosmia. ;-)
Humperdink said...
Losing an election does cause a person to change from being a lying crook to a model citizen. She's out looking for the next scam. Maybe the LLR who frequents this site could guide her in this endeavor.
Nobody was claiming that Hillary was a "model citizen." And I wasn't claiming that she was innocent of any crime(s). Although, we do have this thing called the presumption of innocence. Just as a pure philosophical point; are you suggesting that she does not get any presumption of innocence? Which other people have you decided do not enjoy a presumption of innocence in fact?
I was actually willing to presume, for purposes of an argument, that she had in fact committed one or more crimes. In that case, it's fine for a bunch of unhappy unemployed white guys in a bar to talk trash about how she should be in jail. It's quite another thing for someone in high office, overseeing the Justice Department, to do that.
The guys in the bar mean nothing, and nothing that they say could be relevant to a federal prosecution. It might not be the same, with a president of the United States.
Good ol' Chuck, lifelong Republican. Always bashing Trump and defending Crooked Hillary. Will the pretense never end?
Chuck said...
My question -- much simpler -- was "Why is Trump saying shit like that to the New York Post?"
The one where I finally agree with Chuck on something.
crooked Hillary
Watergate played out from June, 1972 until Nixon resigned in August of 1974. It escalated from a bunch of guys getting caught in a robbery....nothing to see here, move along....to Nixon's resignation.
I'm thinking Trump is seeing the long game. I'll guess we will have a constant trickle of revelations until the preference cascade hits, and the DoJ can pursue Hillary. I'm also guessing that Obama is saved by his skin color.
The "crooked Hillary" comment serves to remind us of Nixon's "I am not a crook".
Trump shouldn't talk that way in public, especially since Bannon is still on the team, but even if he weren't. It's pointless and destructive.
But that's Trump. Mercurial, impulsive and all about Trump. Trump is a guy who gets what he wants and woe to the man or woman who stands in his way. That's why he won and that's why we voted for him and that's why he will eventually piss every one of us off sooner or later.
They say your greatest strength is your greatest weakness. I think Trump demonstrates that more clearly than most.
But we're in it now. Never count your money while you're sittin' at the table, as Kenny Rogers sang way too many times.
mockturtle said...
Good ol' Chuck, lifelong Republican. Always bashing Trump and defending Crooked Hillary. Will the pretense never end?
I didn't defend her, you assclown.
I specifically pointed out that for purposes of argument, I was willing to presume that she should be investigated for a federal crime.
My point was that if anybody is really serious about that, they would shut up and quietly direct the Department of Justice to work up an investigation and prosecution. And not yap about it in the press.
In fact, after Trump won the election last November, he told the press that he wasn't going to press for any new investigations of Hillary along the lines he had proposed during the campaign:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-investigation.html?_r=0
So you see, all of this -- the threats, the "Lock Her Up!" chants, the backdowns from any threats, the name-calling -- is all just part of the generalized Trump garbage-spewing. Garbage that the Trumpkins lap up like they were hungry Labradors. It doesn't have to be serious; the Trump comments are just for their ongoing entertainment.
"Nobody was claiming that Hillary was a "model citizen." And I wasn't claiming that she was innocent of any crime(s). Although, we do have this thing called the presumption of innocence. Just as a pure philosophical point; are you suggesting that she does not get any presumption of innocence? Which other people have you decided do not enjoy a presumption of innocence in fact?"
As a legal matter, of course she has the presumption of innocence, but just from public information alone it's pretty clear she's crooked--everything about that "Clinton Foundation" pay-for-play scam she and her husband had going on during the time she was in public office. I don't think it's beyond the pale to refer to her as crooked.
However, if Trump really thinks she's guilty of a serious crime, he ought not to have said "let bygones be bygones". That just signals he never really believed it.
I don't recall him saying he was going to pick fights with Assad and Kim.
Kim appears to be the one attempting to pick a fight.
Staying out of wars we don't need to get into does not equate to being utterly supine. Weakness in the face of aggression only invites further aggression.
"The "crooked Hillary" comment serves to remind us of Nixon's "I am not a crook"."
There's a new book out about Nixon, I'm on the waiting list at my local library. I heard the author say on C-SPAN that Nixon had a hard life but that he always tried to do good. Also, Nixon wouldn't and never did take money for speeches as the former president, Nixon is much more of an honorable man than any of our current Democrat politicians and I don't think he was a crook.
"Richard Nixon : the life
by Farrell, John A."
Chuck, there is probably sufficient evidence to convict Hillary. Trump knows that a long investigation and trial would be costly and would distract from matters of more current importance.
Republicans think a "crook" means someone who steals money or other valuables.
Democrats think "crook" means someone who disagrees with them.
Thus Nixon was a "crook" by heir standards, but not his.
"Staying out of wars we don't need to get into does not equate to being utterly supine. Weakness in the face of aggression only invites further aggression. "
Depends on aggression against who. Assad is a monster, but his aggression has been against his own people in a civil war. Why does the U.S. have to respond to that? Is anything not our business?
I know for a lot of people everything is certainly our business, but that's a costly way to operate.
"Trump knows that a long investigation and trial would be costly and would distract from matters of more current importance."
I missed that nuance during the "lock her up" chants.
I know we have prosecutorial discretion, but I was among the people who were pissed when Comey decided that there was no reason to prosecute. I assumed most Trumpers agreed with me on that, at least. If a high profile person--who was nominated for president, no less!--committed crimes that (by your admission) there was sufficient evidence to convict on, then it certainly is "worth DOJ's while" to pursue it.
Also, it was utterly predictable, and was predicted, that if Trump won, some state actors, such as North Korea, would present him with an act of aggression, simply to see how he would react. If weakness was shown, then further aggression would be forthcoming.
@Brando
Not disagreeing about Assad, but Kim is acting aggressively towards the US.
I don't know that there is much we can do about him, but sending some ships towards the Korean Peninsula and leaking some news stories about Seals training to assassinate him does not seem unreasonable.
There is too much that needs to be done, and only so much time and energy available. Spending a LOT of that time and energy on a trying to put Hillary in jail, even if she deserves that, is not the best way to spend that time and energy. It's unfortunate, but it's the right decision. Another example of Trump's ability to prioritize.
I think the crooked Hillary line shows that Trump in his mind still takes his cues from TV, where late night comedy hosts and others have their well worn shtick.
readering said...
I think the crooked Hillary line shows that Trump in his mind still takes his cues from TV"
Because everyone knows that Hillary is as honest as the day is long!
If the day we're talking about is December 21 in Nome, Alaska.
Spending a LOT of that time and energy on a trying to put Hillary in jail, even if she deserves that, is not the best way to spend that time and energy.
I am of two minds on this subject. I don't think there is any doubt that she engaged in various illegal activities and as a general rule, crooked politicians should be severely punished to discourage such behavior.
On the other hand, there are a large number of people who will never accept that she is a crook, no matter what the evidence. And if she was prosecuted would view it through the frame of political oppression.
How can you listen to those bizarre "John Miller/John Baron" recordings and not think that the guy has a serious screw loose when it comes to being chatty with the press?
Well, of course that fits your narrative, Chuck. But instead of letting your obsession get the best of you, how about letting Occam's Razor do the trick instead? Try this: Trump has an ego the size of Plymouth Rock. He has a personal history with this that anyone with access to Google could see in a minute or two. He's chatty with the press because he likes the attention, and it boosts his ego.
It's not that hard if you think about it as opposed to emote about it.
"I don't know that there is much we can do about him, but sending some ships towards the Korean Peninsula and leaking some news stories about Seals training to assassinate him does not seem unreasonable."
Yeah Kim is a bigger threat to us and our allies--not sure what the best solution is with him (the fallout from his downfall is the main reason China and SK aren't eager to bring it about). Would have been nice if we'd held the line at the Yalu during the War...
"Spending a LOT of that time and energy on a trying to put Hillary in jail, even if she deserves that, is not the best way to spend that time and energy. It's unfortunate, but it's the right decision."
Must disagree--we're talking about a very high level of corruption, not some minor technicality (I'm not talking about prosecuting her simply for a violation of the e-mail policies, but rather what that violation was intended to hide--high level bribery of a top federal official). If they don't have enough to prosecute successfully, fine--but if they do, and they choose to "let this go" because of political niceties, that makes little sense. And it's not like Trump is earning any goodwill from the decision.
At the very least let DOJ work with FBI to see what evidence they actually have, and make the decision based on likelihood of proving their case. But that's not what Trump did--he basically said early on that he wasn't going to pursue this.
My point was that if anybody is really serious about that, they would shut up and quietly direct the Department of Justice to work up an investigation and prosecution. And not yap about it in the press.
Oh, please. While Hillary and her cohorts have been yapping nonstop in the press for the past 3 months, you've not one single time called them out for it. You save this view for Trump, and only Trump.
Trump is who he is. This obviously bothers you to no end. Admit that, and you'll be that much closer to admitting that you have an obsession.
@Brando:
Yeah Kim is a bigger threat to us and our allies--not sure what the best solution is with him (the fallout from his downfall is the main reason China and SK aren't eager to bring it about).
Agree completely. South Korea may take unification as part of its political boilerplate, but it is terrified by the idea of having to incorporate the poor, underfed, undereducated population of the North. And China fears that a regime collapse would mean poor refugees spilling across their borders.
Also, I don't think there is any credible evidence that the Kim regime is suicidal. If anything, they've proven cannily adept at self-preservation, though at a horrendous cost to the population. The regime most probably wants nuclear weapons for the same reason that other regimes want nuclear weapons: insurance against invasion and regime change. The South Koreans have no appetite for a military campaign against North Korea, especially since the 10,000,000 residents of Seoul, which is only 35 miles from the border, would most likely suffer the most in such a campaign.
Odd that he knows the highest official in the Dem party is a criminal and yet he apparently instructed DOJ/FBI that they should not investigate further (as if that is his call to make?). What about his duty to faithfully execute the laws? Are politicians immune from scrutiny?
What about his duty to faithfully execute the laws? Are politicians immune from scrutiny?
2 words: prosecutorial discretion.
The Kim regime is basically holding South Korea as a hostage.
"Leave me alone and nobody gets hurt."
The current saber rattling by Kim is a probe to see if he can get any concessions from the U.S.
@I Callahan:
2 words: prosecutorial discretion.
I am not a big fan of slippery slope arguments, but isn't that a slippery slope? What is to stop a president from simply refusing to enforce a law passed by Congress under the grounds of prosecutorial discretion? Isn't that essentially a veto of duly enacted legislation?
I don't have a firm position on this issue, by the way. Just sort of musing out loud.
I think China would welcome the entire population of North Korea to fill up their northern territories.
For the Chinese, 25 million people more or less is a rounding error.
"He's President of the United States. She's reduced to simple citizenship and resorting to posing in pink shoes to get attention. Why is he still hurling the epithet? "
Oh I don't know. Maybe because she's still crooked.
Since when is Trump a prosecutor? These decisions should be made by the investigating agencies, which are relatively non-political at least in theory.
I visited the DMZ in the early 90s. Was told that guards wearing Class A uniforms were required to wear clip-on ties. The reason was that the North Koreans had taken to grabbing the ties of the guards on the southern side of the border and yanking them over to the north. They would then photograph the guard on the north side of the border and use it as "proof" that their sovereignty had been violated.
"2 words: prosecutorial discretion."
Yes, and it's this particular exercise of prosecutorial discretion I have an issue with. Just as I did when Comey made a similar decision last summer.
And it's not like Trump said "I asked my DOJ to look into this and they determined this would be a major investigation that could take years and resources with minimal chance of a conviction so we decided to drop it." No, it was "she's good people, she's had it rough, so nah."
"The current saber rattling by Kim is a probe to see if he can get any concessions from the U.S."
As well as China--he's very dependent on getting trade from them, and they're more vulnerable from his collapse. I agree he's not crazy, and (his regime at least) is not stupid. They're playing their one card.
If it was doable to locate and destroy their strategic weapons facilities, and do it without swift retaliation against SK, that would probably be the best bet--neuter them a bit without causing immediate collapse.
"I am not a big fan of slippery slope arguments, but isn't that a slippery slope? What is to stop a president from simply refusing to enforce a law passed by Congress under the grounds of prosecutorial discretion? Isn't that essentially a veto of duly enacted legislation?"
Generally it depends on the reasons they're using for the discretion. If it's "I don't like this law so I'm not enforcing it" that seems a constitutional violation. If it's "we have limited resources and have to be shrewd with our priorities" that's generally legit. If Trump did consult with DOJ and in their opinion this was the latter, that's one thing. But he made this call before he even had his AG in place, and framed it as an act of mercy for Hillary.
Mercy? Sorry, but if she's actually guilty of high level bribery (and what that would have meant for our national security) then no way.
@Hagar:
I think China would welcome the entire population of North Korea to fill up their northern territories.
I don't think there's a shred of evidence for that. China has already gotten heat from the UN over its forced repatriation of North Koreans who illegally cross the border into China.
Although China does allow large numbers of North Koreans to reside illegally in its country, they have no rights and China has forcibly returned tens of thousands over the past two decades.
China’s Repatriation of North Korean Refugees
mockturtle said...
Chuck, there is probably sufficient evidence to convict Hillary. Trump knows that a long investigation and trial would be costly and would distract from matters of more current importance.
Let's assume you are 100% right. (I think it's bullshit but whatever.). All the more reason for Trump to stop churning those waters with his comments.
"I don't think there's a shred of evidence for that. China has already gotten heat from the UN over its forced repatriation of North Koreans who illegally cross the border into China."
Yeah--China hasn't exactly appeared welcoming when it comes to NK refugees. They'd probably be happy taking some limited number of able-bodied laborers, but millions of starving, half crazed people of dubious political reliability? China doesn't want that.
Likely the best thing for China's standpoint would be a better run NK regime still allied to them, to serve as a buffer to SK and a thorn in America's side, but not provocative enough to destabilize the region by pushing America too far or collapsing into a starving refugee storm.
From our standpoint, we'd likely prefer to see SK absorb the North the say West Germany took over the East, but that's less likely to work out so well.
@Brando:
From our standpoint, we'd likely prefer to see SK absorb the North the say West Germany took over the East, but that's less likely to work out so well.
And there's not much appetite in South Korea for such a prospect either. And polling data suggests that South Korea's younger population has even more antipathy towards the prospects of unification.
"And there's not much appetite in South Korea for such a prospect either. And polling data suggests that South Korea's younger population has even more antipathy towards the prospects of unification."
Yeah--it's sort of a turd sandwich all around. No one likes the status quo, and no one likes any of the likely changes to the status quo. The best decision is to not make things worse.
Personally I would like to see Hillary prosecuted since I believe she broke the law and should be punished for it. I think when you have such blatant and clear corruption at such a high level, it's extremely dangerous to pretend that it doesn't exist or to forgive it or to make excuses for it. It undermines any pretense about everyone being equal under the law.
If it were up to me, I would try to prosecute Hillary in as low profile a way as possible (yeah, I know that'd be extremely unlikely), possibly not right away, and in a very methodical and careful way.
But I get the feeling that Trump looks at any prosecution of Hillary as a potential distraction or maybe even a liability to his agenda, since it may seem unnecessarily vindictive in certain corners, and it would just be chaos that he doesn't want or need.
My prediction, the truce between Kuschner and Bannon won't last, Bannon will be out within a few months.. Trump might have finally realized that his low poll numbers are partly due to following Bannon's lead, besides his own issues. It's time for sane people to influence Trump.
@Brando:
The best decision is to not make things worse.
Agreed.
"Personally I would like to see Hillary prosecuted since I believe she broke the law and should be punished for it."
Trump may end up being prosecuted before Hillary ever will.
" It's one thing, to be sitting around with your union buddies talking about who should be in jail."
Lifelong Republican Chuck will never forgive those midwestern and rust belt union members who did not vote for Hillary Clinton, and instead voted for the Republican in the Presidential election.
"But I get the feeling that Trump looks at any prosecution of Hillary as a potential distraction or maybe even a liability to his agenda, since it may seem unnecessarily vindictive in certain corners, and it would just be chaos that he doesn't want or need."
There is a middle ground between "we won't prosecute, I decided to be merciful" and "I'm going to make this an Ahab-like obsession and put her behind bars if it kills my presidency!" That middle ground is "we will refer this to our DOJ to decide what is warranted here". If the DOJ looks into it (Trump's DOJ, not the Obama holdover DOJ) and decides "prosecution not likely enough to succeed" then this would have enough credibility that people wouldn't assume a cover up (after all, Trump's DOJ shouldn't have personal loyalty to Hillary). If they decided "yes, prosecute!" then sure, Dems would scream bloody murder, but that wouldn't be any different from how they're acting now, and if they do have a good case people will see soon enough that the evidence was there.
This "too much of a distraction" argument is fine, if that's what they decide after looking into the costs and benefits, but he made this call before he even had his people at DOJ (and I haven't heard anything about him consulting with anyone before deciding to let Hillary go).
So now, you have Dems thinking Hillary was unfairly railroaded, and the rest of us wondering if anyone with credibility (i.e., not Obama's DOJ) even took a hard look at this.
Trump may end up being prosecuted before Hillary ever will.
4/12/17, 1:57 PM
Delusional.
"Trump may end up being prosecuted before Hillary ever will."
If by that you mean "neither will ever be prosecuted" then I agree. Rules are different for the elites.
China has an alternate path. The current NK leader is an unreliable ally. China can remove him and replace him with the son of the murdered half brother. China maintains a buffer from the Western Powers/SK and has a more loyal, reliable ally (client state). There has been friction between China and NK over the past few years. Kim may overestimate the strength of his hand with China.
@Gojuplye:
China can remove him and replace him with the son of the murdered half brother.
I think you are vastly overstating how much power the Chinese have over the North Korean regime. One of the issues that has contributing to declining relations between the two countries is the North Korean habit of impounding Chinese fishing boats. Chinese financing of North Korea has reduced dramatically, and there has been a noticeable fraying of relations in recent years.
The New York liberal democrats, and family members, will win this fight.
I am kind of horny.
My new grindr hubby's photo is attached.
He lives in the suburbs! How exotic.
Because everyone knows that Hillary is as honest as the day is long!
If the day we're talking about is December 21 in Nome, Alaska.
Good one, exiled!
"His most unmoving base of support is his "Bannonite" base. They may not be my cup of tea on some issues (though I do like their anti-interventionist stance on foreign policy, which I'd rather not see go) but they are crucial to Trump. If he thinks the "globalist" wing of the GOP (e.g., McCain, Graham) will be an even trade, he's sorely mistaken. That group will drop him flat. And the Dems will never trust him."
If Trump wants to get impeached this is how it would happen. Hillary is a criminal. If she loses her Inga's and the rest of her political support she goes to jail. Trump Isn't a criminal but the only reason he is in power is the bannonite block. That is the core of his support. The globalists will take power at the first opportunity and the only thing stopping them is us.
Chuck explains: Let's assume you are 100% right. (I think it's bullshit but whatever.). All the more reason for Trump to stop churning those waters with his comments.
Is he churning your waters, Chuck?
"If Trump wants to get impeached this is how it would happen. Hillary is a criminal. If she loses her Inga's and the rest of her political support she goes to jail. Trump Isn't a criminal but the only reason he is in power is the bannonite block. That is the core of his support. The globalists will take power at the first opportunity and the only thing stopping them is us."
Yep--I don't see how trading them out for the McCain wing gets him anywhere. It's one thing to add to your base, but you don't give up your base. And you certainly don't insult an adviser who appears to have been completely loyal since day one while you're doing it.
One of the issues that has contributing to declining relations between the two countries is the North Korean habit of impounding Chinese fishing boats.
The only thing NK produces that it can sell for hard currency is coal, and China has stopped buying that. So the only source of currency that NK has is the various criminal enterprises it runs throughout the world.
Is there a metaphor reader than "hurling an epithet"?
deader
@Ron Winkleheimer:
The only thing NK produces that it can sell for hard currency is coal, and China has stopped buying that. So the only source of currency that NK has is the various criminal enterprises it runs throughout the world.
I just read that in the Washington Examiner yesterday, and it is an interesting development. Coal is by far North Korea's largest export, and China is the #1 buyer of North Korean goods, but I would not go so far as to say it was the "only thing NK produces that it can sell for hard currency." Coal briquettes are about 1/3 of total North Korean exports ($951 million out of total exports of $2.83 billion in 2015). Here is more information.
J. Farmer, I did not mean to imply it would easy for China to replace Kim. It is doubtful he would go peacefully. The biggest question is what would the military do? Its hard to read anyone's true intentions since even the least suspicion will get people killed. If the military were assured of continued power and freed from Kim's paranoia, they might go for it.
China has been severely displeased with Kim for years. His continued provocations against the Chinese and his belligerence towards the West and SK have put Kim in China's doghouse. But China loses face if NK falls like East Germany. They also lose their buffer. Kim uses that to keep poking the Chinese in the eye. The PLA has been growing more and more restive and there are reports the PLA is really pissed with the NK military's arrogance. The PLA may be looking for a way to put Kim in his place - or let someone else do it for them.
@Gojuplye:
I agree with most of what you wrote, though I would also add that China does not want poor, uneducated refugees pouring over their border by the thousands. I think the tools that are available to China (e.g. not buying coal, NK's #1 export) to influence the regime's behavior are quite limited. Also, even if China were able to identify member so f the military who "might go for it," there remains a big question of how much legitimacy they would possess in the country and what ability they would have for keeping the system afloat, hence the potential for regime collapse. Given that a collapse would likely be seen as catastrophic by the Chinese, I cannot imagine them taking that chance. The Chinese government has proven itself to be quite risk averse.
This report is pretty week tea to get excited about. Trump didn't say what the reporter wanted him to say so he wrote the story the way he wanted to anyway. This is about the level of grocery store tabloid reporting.
Bannon of a Hundred Days now has his head in the block for treason: "Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will." The treason is calling himself Trump's chief strategist.
Trump is just too subtle for people of self-limited intelligence and self-blinding-education like medias, Ingas, and lifelong trolls to grasp. The same with his policies and his relationships with his advisors. Remember how the Dems wiretapped his campaign but still couldn't find out what he was doing? The same with foreign policy and advisors now.
Under Obama all foreign policy questions were presented as: my way or war. Though people said Obama was subtle, this dichotomy always seemed to me to mean that foreign policy at the highest level was conducted at a tabloid level. Kim of Korea would say: "Gimme money or I'll nuke ya'" and Obama of Wimpdom would respond: "Give 'em what they want or they'll nuke us and/or jihad us."
Trump is more subtle but Dem operatives/reporters can't imagine that so they can't imagine what he might be doing. My idea: There's range of options short of war. Obama was too lazy to learn them and too cowardly to pick one and use it. Trump has learned them and picked one in the case of Syria and one in the case of North Korea and one each for their sponsors, Iran, Russia and China. Then you see what happens. Then something else. It would be nice if the medias covered it all but they are just staggering about waving their arms pointlessly as they respond to the virtual reality playing in the bubble on their heads.
@J. Farmer
Man, that's a lot of non-knit suits.
@Ron Winkleheimer:
Man, that's a lot of non-knit suits.
Haha. I was thinking the same exact thing. I did a triple take because I kept thinking I was misreading it.
"However, if Trump really thinks she's guilty of a serious crime, he ought not to have said "let bygones be bygones". That just signals he never really believed it."
That signals that he understands political realities in our deeply divided country. The feigned disingenuousness of Lifelong Republicans here is hilarious. And, as many have pointed out above, Hillary is still a crook. President or not, there's not a reason on Earth for Trump not to remind people of that. Half the country voted for a stone criminal. If I was President I'd mention it every single day.
@The Cracker Emcee/
Very true. Trumps problem is the matter of the DC courts. Any Donkey tried in such a jurisdiction is going to get a jury 90% black and therefore the chance of conviction is almost nil. This is a very tall mountain to climb. And were Hills found not guilty by the brothers she would crow for all time about her pure-as-driven-snow innocence and might even use her "unjust" and "vindictive" prosecution as a springboard for another run at the Presidency.
What got me is that he's still saying "crooked Hillary." He's President of the United States. She's reduced to simple citizenship and resorting to posing in pink shoes to get attention. Why is he still hurling the epithet?
Um, because he has nothing good to say about himself.
Duh.
Kushner: Intelligent young Jew who knows how to be competent, gracious and successful.
Bannon: Right-wing crackpot crank who was eluded by success absent a Jew he could glom on to (Seinfeld, Goldmann Sachs, etc.).
Trump knows which is the right tribe to get with to get things done. Time to dump his coterie of Irish fibbers and talebearers (Spicer, Conway, etc. - uh, and, well Miller [nothing's 100%]). and resume business with the "little short guys that wear yarmulkes every day".
The man with the cigar in the Sammy Davis clip is clearly Bill Cosby.
@The Tootheless Revolutionary:
Trump knows which is the right tribe to get with to get things done.
Yes, I am sure the less than 2% of the American population that is Jewish is totally concerned about maximizing the well being of the other 98% as opposed to working in their own narrow ethnic self-interests. Oh wait...
Yes, I am sure the less than 2% of the American population that is Jewish is totally concerned about maximizing the well being of the other 98% as opposed to working in their own narrow ethnic self-interests. Oh wait...
Yeah, I think I will wait. Your statement, short as it is, is about the stupidest anti-semitism I've ever read, coming from an innocent little semi-intelligent waif like yourself. WTF is it that the American president can do to improve the "well being" of a minor tribe in the mix that somehow stands apart from the fortunes of the rest of the country? Not much, as far as I can tell. Poll them on their priorities and concerns: Not much different from Americans as a whole (esp. American Catholics, I'd guess) when it comes to a functioning social welfare safety net (not that they tend to need much of one to rely on), a healthy economy, a foreign policy that isn't an embarrassment, and a leader who sets an example of tolerance instead of debasing himself with hatred. Jews have already served at the highest levels, very successfully: Been there, done that. The only question is whether the American president cares enough about the office to continue seeking out wise counsel - whether from among their ranks or wherever.
Why did I even have to write all this? I guess when folks like yourself go cryptic, I have to assume the education you need in assuming/understanding the normalcy of others is great. But I'm sure you've got a comforting tale to tell yourself about sekrit cabals anyway. Hey, at least you've got a friend in Trump in that regard. He even thought Obama was involved in a conspiracy to "tapp" his phones. Oh, and to downplay the inaugural crowd attendance. Can't wait til he gets to the bottom of that. It'll probably take him as long as it did to reveal the "wonderful things" his detectives found about Obama's birth certificate in Hawaii. Until they didn't.
Christian Evangelicals make up much more than 2% of the population and are not an ethnic group. Let alone one with "narrow ethnic self-interests." Try again.
The crooked Clinton gang has a problem. There is no statute of limitations on Murder.
@The Toothless Revolutionary:
Yeah, I think I will wait. Your statement, short as it is, is about the stupidest anti-semitism I've ever read, coming from an innocent little semi-intelligent waif like yourself.
Blah blah blah. Wake me when it's over.
Why Immigration Reform Is A Jewish Issue
She said it, not me. I await your denouncement of her blistering anti-semitism. The notion that there is such thing as a "Jewish issue." Oh, what a...what was it? Oh yeah..."semi-intelligent little waif."
Blah blah blah. Wake me when it's over.
Yeah. You'd have to be comatose to assert that Evangelical Christians are "2% of the American population" or "working in their own narrow ethnic self-interests."
What's with the lazy-ass defense of your supposedly intelligent opinion? What have you got against Jews? That they tend to be more self-sufficient and successful? They don't need and never needed the government for that. They never ask the government for help with that. Bankers do what bankers do, as do nations, but if you're so sheltered as to confuse "investment banker" or "Israel supporter" with "Jew" then I'm afraid there's not much that can help you with that. Enjoy your slumber. Most people like to dream peacefully but apparently you consider the prospect of losing your ridiculous bigotry a ruder awakening.
She said it, not me. I await your denouncement of her blistering anti-semitism. The notion that there is such thing as a "Jewish issue." Oh, what a...what was it? Oh yeah..."semi-intelligent little waif."
What are you even trying to say? One woman wrote one article and I can't even tell what your gripe is - unless you're one of those anti-immigration types who thinks it's a Jewish plot to destroy America with Mexicans/Muslims or whatever. If so, she cites an article saying 63% of Americans support immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for illegals - or three times as many as the deportation fanatics.
So who even knows what your position is, if you're asserting that Jews as a whole are pro-immigration in a way that somehow stands apart from widespread public opinion, or what. Suffice it to say if you're a Trumpist by reason of immigration alone, you have a lot more places to start with attacking than a very minor minority that doesn't have the numbers to immigrate here en masse, anyway.
He's an Alt Righter.
@The Toothless Revolutionary:
They never ask the government for help with that. Bankers do what bankers do, as do nations, but if you're so sheltered as to confuse "investment banker" or "Israel supporter" with "Jew" then I'm afraid there's not much that can help you with that.
If you want to argue with some Stormfront/ZOG/White Identity/Christian Identity buffoon, you're more than welcome to do that. I have never made any of the claims that you're going on about, so I have no idea what that is a response to.
What's with the lazy-ass defense of your supposedly intelligent opinion?
That your first response of "antisemitism" followed by a personal insult against me suggests to me that you're probably not that serious of a thinker and most likely nothing fruitful will come from engaging with you. Against my better judgment, I'm doing it anyway.
What have you got against Jews?
Nothing. I have nothing against any group of people, however you want to slice them up. I only have gripes with specific individuals and over specific issues. That I can differentiate between the individual and the group does not prevent me from discussing the latter.
That they tend to be more self-sufficient and successful?
Totally agree. I never tire of pointing this out. They are 2% of the population and are nearly 50% of all American billionaires. They are 0.2% of the world population but have won more than 20% of the technical Nobel Prizes. I could go on.
They don't need and never needed the government for that.
Sure. But then again, medieval Christian laws against usury led to the predominance of Jews in lending. See The Merchant of Venice. Jews are overrepresented in finance compared to their relative population. This is all basic empirical fact. Does pointing it out amount to "antisemitism." Jews are overrepresented in Hollywood. This is such an obvious fact of common sense, it's become a total cliche. See Joel Stein's infamous 2008 LA Times article, Who runs Hollywood? C'mon for the clearest exposition of this.
The Jews of medieval Europe were also victim to a pernicious discrimination, not just in the form of violent pogroms but official expulsions See Ferdinand II of Spain's 1492 Alhambra Decree. Jewish people are a people with a unique historical experience that has shaped their culture and identity.
Nothing remotely similar can be said of so called "evangelical Christians." Here is a list of Jewish organizations based in the United States. To the degree that Jewish people in America have a unique identity, history, and culture, they are quite clearly an ethnicity, "Evangelical" is a description of theology. Evangelical Christians do not consider themselves "ethnically" different from mainstream Protestants. Jewish people do. I think that is a clear observation of fact. That doesn't mean I have to expound The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion, a Russian fabrication. But I have common sense enough to look at the world I live in and describe it accurately.
You don't have to be from Stormfront to have an obvious gripe or a nag, however you mute it. It was the entire reason you rang the buzzer, so I figured your issue - wherever it lurks, as nicely as you put it was worth exploring.
But you're trying to get off the hook now, or back away from it. Or whatever. So I read and read your 9:13 trying to figure out what your complaint is - just because your initial objection was so silly. No, Jews aren't influencing the government to their own benefit in ways that go beyond their feelings on what will benefit American society as a whole - just like every group does.
Sure. But then again, medieval Christian laws against usury led to the predominance of Jews in lending.
And what's your point? It's not as if Christians weren't allowed to lend; it's just that their church only let them lend to (i.e. "against") Jews. So yes, smaller pool for customers equals smaller pool of practitioners, I suppose. But I'm still not getting where you feel you need to go with this.
See The Merchant of Venice.
To see what? That it reflects(/questions?) the unquestioned and unpretty, commonplace anti-semitic attitudes of the day? I haven't read much Shakespeare, but I know that much. Again, what's your point?
Jews are overrepresented in finance compared to their relative population.
What is the "acceptable" level of representation in a field? Why do you raise this, even? Should they tell their children that education is over-rated or to avoid it? I assume if you're anti-immigration you're placing your bets on solutions that lead away from things that make people successful, as opposed to less outcompeted in a less remunerative field.
This is all basic empirical fact.
Lol. You don't say. So is the early Charles Murray stuff and the data waved around about black-on-black crime. It's the parts you're leaving out that make it interesting and worth exploring what you're trying to get out of it.
Does pointing it out amount to "antisemitism."
I guess that depends what your point is in banging on about it.
Jews are overrepresented in Hollywood.
Lol. Again with this word, "overrepresented." What's the ideal "level" of representation? Should there be writers quotas? Producers quotas? There used to be quotas restricting their numbers admitted to universities. Are you upset that that was done away with?
They were "overrepresented" in Hollywood's founding, let alone its current state. Germans are "overrepresented" in auto manufacture; Italians in good design. But then, these are the people who wrote the Bible, for whatever's sake - a foundational text of Western civilization. I think it's safe to say that they must value creativity and literary expression in a way that you might learn to appreciate - if you want to increase your own "representation" (whatever group you claim) among their ranks. But instead, your comments seem to keep leaking a presumption of resentment.
This is such an obvious fact of common sense, it's become a total cliche. See Joel Stein's infamous 2008 LA Times article, Who runs Hollywood? C'mon for the clearest exposition of this.
Whatever point Joel Stein was trying to make, I don't think whatever he said had the self-righteous undertone of going after a cabal aimed at undermining America's interests - as yours does.
@The Toothless Revolutionary:
What is the "acceptable" level of representation in a field?
There is none. It's a statement of statistical reality, not a value judgment. For example, women are about 50% of the population but are about 90% of the nurses. Women are overrepresented in nursing. Doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Doesn't mean its a result of women's sinister effort to dominate nursing. Similarly, Jewish people are overrepresented in the profession of finance, relative to their general population, and there is a specific set of historical circumstances that explain this. West Africans are overrepresented in sprint running competitions; east Africans in long-distance running. There are good evolutionary arguments to explain this phenomenon. A white person, an African person, or an Asian person can make this observation just as surely as I have looking at the same exact raw data. Doesn't mean any of us have to feel a certain way about it. Men are about half the population but nearly 90% of the jail and prison population. You don't have to feel any certain way about men to describe this.
You cannot use a term like "overrepresented" without implying a value judgment on a supposedly proper level of representation, and the fact that this is so is betrayed by your own initial derogation of Jews as having "narrow" interests. Were Bernie Sanders' "interests" narrow? They're classically Jewish.
Add all that to the fact that, if you're nervous about immigrants, one assumes you don't generally have a problem making snap judgments against people on the basis of ethnicity/origin as a handy way of dealing with political problems that's simpler than their complexity allows, or in a way that's cruder than decency will permit.
Were Bernie Sanders' "interests" narrow? They're classically Jewish.
Once again, that's a person; I'm talking about people. There is a difference between talking about a person and talking about a group. For example, as a group, Jews are more likely to be concerned with issues concerning than the average American voter. That doesn't mean that every Jewish person will feel that way. They're two different things. Also, there is nothing wrong with that fact. It would be totally expected. The United States is full of people of different ethnicities who join political and social groups whose primary political goal is to work in the interest of the people of the same ethnicity. It's totally expected. It's a phenomenon that's been discussed. There are groups that promote the interests of blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, Muslims, Hindus, gays, transgenders, etc. etc. etc. It's the way identity politics is played. Jews play it as well. And as you have correctly pointed out, Jews have achieved at high levels, much higher relative to their population. Hence, their identity politics matter. And since I'm against identity politics, I'm against it. Doesn't mean I have any certain opinion or feel any certain way about any certain person who is Jewish. That would be absurd. A judge people like a judge every person, based on how they act and behave. I could give a flying fuck about anything else. What business is it of mine?
Once again, that's a person; I'm talking about people.
So you insist on the utility of stereotypes (specifically in politics, as we were talking about Jewish political figures), without saying what those stereotypes will consist of other than a bunch of innuendo surrounding what people excel at. Abilities and interests are different things, dummy.
There is a difference between talking about a person and talking about a group.
Right. You hate specifics because they accurately detract from the generalizations you want to use (without stating it outright) as the more useful lie.
For example, as a group, Jews are more likely to be concerned with issues concerning than the average American voter.
Concerning. Concerning... what? Exactly what stereotype did you forget to insert after the preposition, Mr. Stormfront-Lite?
That doesn't mean that every Jewish person will feel that way.
Whatever way that is.
The United States is full of people of different ethnicities who join political and social groups whose primary political goal is to work in the interest of the people of the same ethnicity. It's totally expected. It's a phenomenon that's been discussed. There are groups that promote the interests of blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, Muslims, Hindus, gays, transgenders, etc. etc. etc. It's the way identity politics is played. Jews play it as well....
In a way and for a purpose that you STILL have yet to claim or define.
Perhaps it suits YOUR purpose to be vague in what you want to spread suspicion of when it comes to Jews.
Your type have done that for centuries. I can't say whether it suited y'all well. But it does always end up ignominiously, for some reason.
And as you have correctly pointed out, Jews have achieved at high levels, much higher relative to their population. Hence, their identity politics matter. And since I'm against identity politics, I'm against it. Doesn't mean I have any certain opinion or feel any certain way about any certain person who is Jewish.
You seem to excel at running around in circles. What Jewish politician or political figure ever defined a position around his/her "identity" and what was that position? Other than, oh I don't know - civil rights? Or other moral/ethical positions that didn't do much for their own community?
Come on. For someone who claims not to have some problem with Jews, you sure do use every trick in the book of making vague accusations designed to stir suspicions of them. At least your predecessors had the bravado to accuse them of colluding with the devil. Or an international banking conspiracy. But no, you back off of all that and just insist on accusing them of something, and in a way that everyone else supposedly does. But you just won't say what.
Therefore, according to Farmer, the Jews stand accused of: __________(Fill in the blank)_______.
Their interests are "narrow," "self-"oriented, "ethnic", concentrated in the media and financial/acquisitive according to you, but other than that Mr Farmer has no idea of specifically what he wants to berate them for. He's just having a conversation, you see, where all those things are supposedly neutral or positive and where Jews don't have to necessarily coordinate for their success in them to detract from America. He won't even go that far. He's happy to just plant a tiny cherry bomb and then slink away to look around wondering why people are glancing in his direction.
Keep slithering, Farmer.
@The Toothless Revolutionary:
You're being hysterical and overwrought. First, that was a typographical error. That sentence should have read: "For example, as a group, Jews are more likely to be concerned with issues concerning Israel than the average American voter." I had first intended to add a hyperlink to polling data but then decided against it, inadvertently deleting the word."
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe there was ever a such thing as Irish-American political issues and political organization devoted to the interest of Irish Americans? Ted Kennedy certainly believed there was. And the stories of these groups are made into American literature and cinema. It's taken as a given that there was such as thing as an Irish-American polity. When I say that there is such a thing as a Jewish-American polity, I am saying the same thing. Yes there are people who peddle conspiracy theories and all sorts of sinister motives and exploits (e.g. Rothschilds conspiracies, Nation of Islam conspiracies, Catholic antisemitism, etc.). I am not making any of those arguments that those types of people and make and in fact, I reject and think they are largely conspiracy-mongering misreadings of history. Nonetheless, I do believe that Jews are overrepresented in media and positions of influence relative to their total population. I am not attributing sinister motives or even organized intent as explanation. I think that there are a number of contributing historical factors that do explain the current state of affairs, and I am prepared to defend that argument.
"For example, as a group, Jews are more likely to be concerned with issues concerning Israel than the average American voter."
Oh. So now we get back to your first fuck-up, that I more than anticipated well in advance.
Here's a corrective to your stereotype:
"As a group, Evangelical Christians are more likely to be concerned with issues concerning Israel than the average American voter."
You can thank me any time.
BTW, Evangelical Christians - 26% of the population. 13 times more numerically powerful as a voting bloc on Israel than Jews.
Maybe it's their lack of success in Hollywood or Wall Street that caused your oversight.
I think that there are a number of contributing historical factors that do explain the current state of affairs, and I am prepared to defend that argument.
Well you named one. (The church's control over lending and occupations).
Here's two more:
1. Persecution may lead to greater success. If nothing else, you have to be better at outwitting your persecutors to survive. So keep going after Jews if you want them to keep doing better than you. It seems to work.
2. Unlike Christians and Muslims, Jews never sought an empire (which requires the conquest of others) through which to impose their religion on others. Therefore, they were free to concern themselves with their own well-being, rather than with how to control the peasant, the yeoman, the serf, and everyone else that the Church mandated illiteracy for and a centralized moral authority over. Jews, OTOH, stayed free to learn and to question their authorities. Possibly a good trait when it comes to staying intellectually nimble and economically self-supporting. While Christendom's kings were busy maintaining their lords' and nobles' happiness through an ordered hierarchy over a subservient lower class, the Jews didn't suffer this problem, let alone any subsequent multi-generational class-based disability because of it.
Here's a third one:
The Roman exile probably depopulated Israel's urban centers, allowing the educated upper classes to be dispersed while the peasant Jews remained behind to supply grain to Rome; becoming over time, Byzantine Christian former Jews and Samaritans and, following the 10th c. edict of al Hakim, forcibly converted Muslim "Palestinians."
A fourth one is that it was the merchants who made the most use of Rome's vast empire in the first place, dispersing to population centers throughout the Mediterranean and eventually central Europe.
But I'm sure you'll find a way to reduce all that to "narrow ethnic self-interest".
Farmer's mad at Jared and Ivanka because they're coming close to ridding the White House of Bannon. Blame the Jews, says he.
Church mandated illiteracy
What?
Charlemagne was illiterate. Most people were illiterate in the Middle Ages because books were scarce and expensive and learning to read took time and effort but would have given no material benefit. People focused their effort where it would do the most good, working to produce actual food or learning a trade via apprenticeship. The Church had no need to mandate illiteracy.
While Christendom's kings were busy maintaining their lords' and nobles' happiness through an ordered hierarchy over a subservient lower class
That's called manoralism, or more popularly,feudalism. A system of governance that arose in Western Europe after the invasion of a variety of different tribes of people that led to the downfall of the Roman Empire in the West. Its came to be and persisted because it enabled people to survive in an environment lacking the law and order, trade, and transportation that the Roman Empire had provided.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
@The Toothless Revolutionary:
A fourth one is that it was the merchants who made the most use of Rome's vast empire in the first place, dispersing to population centers throughout the Mediterranean and eventually central Europe.
A fifth one is IQ. Standardized cognitive testing suggests that Ashkenazi Jews may have mean IQs as high as 115.
Jewish-Americans, in general, are opposed to nationalist policies and support globalist policies. "Rootless cosmopolitan" was an antisemitic slur, but it's based on a certain reality. In the article I linked to, Stosh Cotler, CEO of "Bend the Arc: a Jewish Partnership for Justice" writers in the article Why Immigration Reform Is A Jewish Issue: "Jews have always been immigrants. We're always searching for a safe place to call home. That is one reason we are so invested in making sure that today's immigrants have the opportunity to build their lives in America like we did."
The loose immigration policy of the post-1965 reform has been disastrous for the American national identity. Our history, customs, politics, and economic system are all rooted in an Anglo-Protestant culture. A multi-ethnic polity in a representative democracy is a terrible thing. It will inevitably lead to ethnic balkanization. This phenomenon has been discussed from all sides of the mainstream political spectrum, from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s 1991 The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society to Samuel Huntington's Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity.
The loose immigration policy of the post-1965 reform has been disastrous for the American national identity.
Oh, bullshit, you racist ninny. The country was nothing close to that way before 1965 - after electing its first Catholic president - represented by waves of such who came here for centuries prior to 1965, AND from Southern, Mediterranean Europe not too much later than that - i.e. up to WWII. That's not counting the Africans yanked over here unwillingly, to be worked and raped at will.
(Sorry for the language, Ann, but come on. Farmer's bigotry is downright ridiculous).
As for "multi-ethnic polities" and your fixation w/Jews, specifically, here's "Father of the Country," General George Washington, in his famous 1790 reply to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, R.I.:
"For happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
The letter in its entirety shows the deeper underlying sentiments that the Founder expressed. No room in any of that for your nonsensical blood-and-soil nativism, which has no need and no place in a liberal, constitutional republic as far removed from even the idea of ethnic nationhood as America.
IQ is an opportunistic and questionably legitimate metric of intelligence. Not a cause of it.
As for (whatever insult) cosmopolitanism, you need not concern yourself with American Jews. They seem to be quite at home and stay here in the land modeled as much off their own history as it is off of that of those very non-Anglo, non-Protestant Romans without much incident or problem or interest in being "uprooted" elsewhere. And as for cosmopolitanism itself, we'll always have and will continue to have large cities. That's just how civilization goes. You bigots can stay in the provinces and plow the fields - the vocation and vantage point from which your meandering musings on how to stoke racial division/animosity can do the least damage to the country.
@The Toothless Revolutionary:
Oh, bullshit, you racist ninny. The country was nothing close to that way before 1965 - after electing its first Catholic president - represented by waves of such who came here for centuries prior to 1965, AND from Southern, Mediterranean Europe not too much later than that - i.e. up to WWII. That's not counting the Africans yanked over here unwillingly, to be worked and raped at will.
Read Eric P. Kaufmann's The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America. Follow that up with Samuel Huntington's Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's National Identity and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. Then read Francis Fukuyama's Trust: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order and Bob Putnam's E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the 21st Century. The issues facing America will be much clearer then.
No room in any of that for your nonsensical blood-and-soil nativism, which has no need and no place in a liberal, constitutional republic as far removed from even the idea of ethnic nationhood as America.
“The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”
-Alexander Hamilton, The Examination Number VIII, 12 January 1802
IQ is an opportunistic and questionably legitimate metric of intelligence. Not a cause of it.
Maybe, but is still one of the most predictive variables in all of social sciences.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा