The top-rated comment — by far — on the Frank Bruni column in the NYT "How to Lose the Midterms and Re-elect Trump" (which begins "Dear Robert De Niro, Samantha Bee and other Trump haters: I get that you’re angry. I’m angry, too. But anger isn’t a strategy. Sometimes it’s a trap. When you find yourself spewing four-letter words, you’ve fallen into it. You’ve chosen cheap theatrics over the long game, catharsis over cunning").
This post gets my tag "civility bullshit," which has been used restrictively over the years to highlight my proposition that calls for civility are always bullshit. They're not seriously based on some idea that discourse should be civil across the board. It's always a means to an end. Often it's calling out the other side's incivility, trying to get them to tone it down, when the comparable incivility on one's own side would be cheered on as tough and well-deserved.
The commenter here openly stating the proposition that is usually kept hidden. What Frank Bruni is doing is a bit different, but it's also civility as a means to an end. He thinks his side is overdoing it, impulsively seeking relief in stupid outbursts like De Niro's "Fuck Trump" at the Tony Awards, and it's going to hurt them politically.
Yeah, it's funny how De Niro stepped up to the role of straight man for Trump, who tweeted:
Robert De Niro, a very Low IQ individual, has received too many shots to the head by real boxers in movies. I watched him last night and truly believe he may be “punch-drunk.” I guess he doesn’t...Wake up Punchy!
...realize the economy is the best it’s ever been with employment being at an all time high, and many companies pouring back into our country. Wake up Punchy!
Posts
98 comments:
I agree with Trump that the people in the entertainment industry, including reality TV, are generally low IQ individuals.
This is how they got Trump and this is how they'll get more Trump. Maybe NOT in 2018. If not, surely they will in 2020.
Every day the open contempt and sneering hatred from the leftists on the coasts is more and more openly displayed.
Do they honestly think that its winning converts to their cause? Regular voters are realizing, very rapidly, that the left hates them. Hates them viscerally.
And any glance at history demonstrates what happens to the people leftists viscerally hate when leftists get power.
It's a matter of survival to never let the left gain complete power in this country. Just imagine Ritmo with complete power--the bloodbath would be the greatest in history.
Libertarians used to have a sarcastic slogan about the encroaching power of the state, "Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory."
Politically, the Left is kinda going in that direction - If you don't vigorously oppose that Nazi Trump, then you yourself are a Nazi.
I hate the Nazis, and am glad we stormed the beaches in Normandy to defeat those evil bastards, two generations ago. But, Yeah, I do support Trump and do think that his critics are often unhinged and hysterical.
Heh. "Punchy" was what Travolta's' character in Pulp Fiction called Bruce Willis's guy. Trump know how to work in an homage with his jabs.
This is quite a typical opinion from that class.
I know, I live among them.
Thankfully I don't work in an industry that has many of them.
It can't, as a great many are quite "deplorable".
The hatred is real and nearly obsessive.
For instance, my experience with public schools was over shortly prior to Trump, but it seems from what I have heard it is boiling at that pitch. Commencement ceremonies for the last two years have "gone there", and we are talking of middle schools to universities.
TDS is real. The term may have begun as a joke but it is a genuine mental disorder the victims of which seem to be unaware that they, not their target, are the ones unhinged. How and where it will end is unknown but so long as we have the NYT and its readers there can be no cure.
"while berating honorable Democrats"
Honorable Democrats? Good one. Got any more material?
Chris Matthews worked for Jimmy Carter in the White House and he saw Reagan win in 1980, and in 1984, and Matthews said that until the Reagan diaries were published in 2007 he was convinced the Reagan (president of SAG, twice elected governor of a prosperous California, Presidnet) was a dummy and an empty suit.
It is simply not possible for these people to accept that their narrative is wrong.
Maybe it was 2001 when the Diaries were published.
This stuff just generates more gun sales.
There is nothing quite like a constant barrage of "we hate you!" to insert an idea of personal and communal uncertainty.
The other side on the other hand is quite oblivious to the effect of their statements.
And there really is no way to speak across the divide. The hysteria prevents it.
It is difficult even to sidle around such subjects. And its becoming impossible even to dissent about anything related to the hegemonic canon of opinion.
To be clear, the "deplorables" can indeed (usually, there are a few places where one can't argue) sustain dissent and a conversation. You can disagree.
But the other way is not possible.
> We’re not going to win over the deplorable nincompoops who voted for this man.
A lot of those shitheads voted for Barack Obama. This is the dumbest possible comment to make and we've got to assume this jackass doesn't have half a fucking brain to make it.
Wow. That’s some serious hatred there. People like that are why I don’t talk about politics in person.
Should have used the original tweet before someone fixed the typo (to for too).
Tsk tsk when he embraces murderers and war criminals while berating honorable Democrats?
Honorable Democrats? Who? Where? Assumes they did not go extinct circa 2006, if not substantially earlier.
But really this is the classic question: do you win elections be convincing people or by getting people out of the house? Anger is bad for the first and good for the second.
Why has politics become so ugly? Why do so many from both sides act as if those who disagree with them are worthy of contempt? It often looks to me like the candidates foment this extreme view of those on the other side, which suggests the candidates think it helps them get elected. By why does the electorate respond to this tactic? Or is it the candidates who are responding to the electorate? Or is it me that is misstating a problem that doesn’t exist? Or is it you who are unwisely spending some of your roughly 2.5 billion seconds on earth reading my pedantry? I blame Althouse.
It's tired but true.
The Right thinks the Left is mistaken.
The Left thinks the Right is evil.
Their ultimate conceit is that they think their contempt is not only acceptable, but expected.
#NoLabels? #TooManyLabels! #PrinciplesMatter.
They heard him brag about groping unwilling starlets.
I thought he was bragging that they are willing (when you're rich enough).
Bruni may try to tamp down the hateful invective from the Trump haters, but don't worry, they'll persist.
Lord have mercy. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
Why has politics become so ugly? Why do so many from both sides act as if those who disagree with them are worthy of contempt?
Politics has always been ugly, always will be ugly. It is warfare without most of the killing.
The contempt stems from believing in caricatures, both the left and right build up straw-men of their political opponents. They believe the caricatures to be true because it is easy while understanding that their fellow citizens rarely conform to such remains hard, it requires more time and effort to understand them as they are.
A people that are trained in critical thinking can see through the deception that is promulgated by those that seek power, unfortunately that skill is dying out.
The one reason why I am desperately hoping for a red wave (And I think one is coming) instead of a blue wave, despite the fact that it would be better for the United States, is to watch the reactions of the Left when they realize that the American people have rejected their politics of hate, fear and division.
E Pluribus Unum.
I was hoping the Minnesota raccoon would start commenting using Inga's account. Too much to hope for, I guess.
This is Spanish Civil War level communal hatred.
“A civil war is not a war but a sickness.”
"Normal human instincts were overridden. In the tense spring of 1936, on his way to Madrid University, Julián Marías, a disciple of the philosopher José Ortega y Gasset, never forgot the hatred in the expression of a tram-driver at a stop as he watched a beautiful and well-dressed young woman step down onto the pavement. ‘We’ve really had it,’ Marías said to himself. ‘When Marx has more effect than hormones, there is nothing to be done.’
From the introduction -
Beevor, Antony. The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 (Kindle Locations 213-217). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Anyone who has read any history of the U.S. will understand this kind of hatred has always been there. See how Abe Lincoln was characterized, or the slander against Thomas Jefferson.
The only difference is that the megaphones have gotten bigger.
De Niro's "Fuck you Trump" was worth it - because it led to Trump's response.
"Punch drunk De Niro"
His new name
" both the left and right build up straw-men of their political opponents. "
Straw-men yes, but complete hysteria is not equally divided.
I have often tested this.
I can disagree with either side (on a tangential issue say, I am after all a prudent man), but I risk inducing rage only in one.
Sad to say, score this round for Trump.
"The one reason why I am desperately hoping for a red wave"
It doesn't matter, in this respect.
Common sense is fled, and cannot return without some catharsis.
The amour proper of most of one side at least will not permit it.
"We’re not going to win over the deplorable nincompoops who voted for this man." Thanks, bud (gal?)--we wear that as a badge of honor.
"Do you honestly think that we will offend their delicate sensibilities?" Our sensibilities used to to be delicate. We used want to have standards. Then your defense of Bill told us that character didn't matter and standards were for pussies, so to speak.
"These are the people who witnessed the vilest displays of hate, including his encouragement of skinheads to beat up protesters." Huh? Viler than BushHitler? Viler than Kathy and decapitation?
"They heard him brag about groping unwilling starlets." He stated an uncomfortable truth --they do let you do it -- and after Bill's rape, we just don't give a damn.
"They watched as he mocked a disabled reporter. " You mean, unlike Slow Joe?
"And yet they went into voting booths all across America and pulled the lever for this narcissistic, unread, vulgar excuse for a human being." More vulgar than LBJ? And what did W ever get for his reading habits?
"Robert De Niro expressed openly the disgust that I have been feeling in my den, sitting in front of the TV and pretty much yelling the same sorts of things when I encounter the daily outrages that ooze from this pustule of a president." Thanks for writing Trump's ad material.
All contempt, no content: even by prog standards this is a pretty serious case of TDS. Trump is a genius.
Sure, some righties despised O. But like this . . .?
People could have talked about Obama like that, but mostly they didn't despite the rampant illegal, un-American, feckless nature of his 8 years. People made plenty of fun of Obama, and some of us hated him, but not on a visceral, personal level like this. This sounds like people who would be willing to hurt or even kill the target of their anger. They would cheer him being lynched in the street.
Even those of us who hated Obama just wanted him to go away, to lose an election, to be impeached at worst. This hatred now is beyond what I ever see in private with people, even when the target deserves hatred, and these people are doing this very publicly in front of the whole world. They are so deranged that they have no second thoughts about that, which is a pretty bad sign of their character or judgement. Although they call all Republican presidents "Hitler", they really see Trump as an actual equal to such evil, and would be willing to kill him in his crib if they could go back in time. It really makes them look ridiculous, at least to the clear-eyed.
buwaya puti said...
I have often tested this.
I can disagree with either side (on a tangential issue say, I am after all a prudent man), but I risk inducing rage only in one.
You should create a sock puppet and try espousing views that Inga might endorse. See how far you get with that. Any argument that relies on the idea that the people in one group are inherently morally superior to the people in a different group is ridiculous.
There's a key difference between The Spanish Civil War and the Civil war and today.
Today almost all the hate and intolerance is coming from one side - The Left.
And the Left is NOT a revolutionary force in USA 2018, it is the establishment.
His fellow Billionaires hate Trump. DC hates Trump. The MSM hates Trump. The whole educational-Entertainment complex hates Trump.
Only about 50% of average American like Trump. That's his whole support.
Is Frank Bruni thinking the incivility is hurting his side? Or is he just tired of listening to it, and dangling the hope of getting back into office as an enticement to get it to stop?
Looked at that way, the anti-Trump incivility may be a tell that a great many Democrats feel they have no hope of getting back in.
I honestly didn't hate Obama. He had a smooth style, which was attractive.
I profoundly disagreed with his policy prescriptions, but I did like his tone and demeanor.
To me, he seemed like an honorable guy, who had a very different outlook than me, largely because had had no business experience.
"It really makes them look ridiculous, at least to the clear-eyed. "
Nothing like this is ridiculous. It needs to be taken seriously.
It is not unknown, indeed, it is fairly common result in group dynamics. People in large numbers can leave reason and acculturation behind. The Hutu-Tutsi disaster was of exactly this nature, one tribe literally lost its mind. One could call it a ridiculous overreaction, and indeed it was, completely disproportionate to any participants personal interests. Except it stopped being ridiculous when the blood started flowing.
ARM
Clearly you have skipped over the comments of the blogger Ritmo.
The Left has always been full of hate. The reason is simple. They have an agenda they want implemented. The Right is stopping them.
Meanwhile, the Right doesn't have an agenda. They can't even agree to restrict immigration or get rid of Obama care.
The Left is proactive. The Right is stupidly reactive. That's why there's a constant ratchet to the Left. Today, JFK would be Right-wing extremist.
Punchy. Trump is a master
Never got the Obama hatred. He was just a Standard issue, Blue State Democrat. Had we elected Hillary or Biden in 2008 - nothing would've changed.
I can disagree with either side (on a tangential issue say, I am after all a prudent man), but I risk inducing rage only in one.
Buways is right that the two sides are not equally hysterical. Nor are both sides, I would add, equally dangerous.
The Spanish Civil War is a better analogue than you would think.
The Spanish State in 1936, was, much like in the US, an entity owned by the left.
So was "civil society", so was most of the intelligentsia, so was most of the MSM, and for that matter so also most of the military and the security forces. After the failed Nationalist coup, almost all the territory of Spain and all its major cities other than Sevilla were in Republican-leftist hands, as with the organs of the state and the economy.
Sevilla, the only major city taken in the initial sequence of events, was taken by a coup against local public opinion by a brilliant imposture. The rebellion survived, in 1936, and turned into a facsimile of a state, only because of the extreme military skill of an outsider minority. An epic conquest, not unlike that of Cortez, against great odds.
rcocean said...
Never got the Obama hatred. He was just a Standard issue, Blue State Democrat. Had we elected Hillary or Biden in 2008 - nothing would've changed.
This is truer than many think for Trump as well. Congress has controlled what legislation got passed, or not passed, as the case may be. Trump puts on a good show but is unlikely to have much lasting impact.
> " both the left and right build up straw-men of their political opponents. "
I've found the right far more congenial to discussion. That isn't new, the current wave of crazee on the left really got going with Bush, and didn't go away with Obama, it just went into temporary remission. Nor do I think it will go away anytime soon, but the number of deranged may decrease somewhat over the coming years. My big hope is that the truly crazy are a minority, and normal people who used to vote Democrat out of tradition will move to the Republican side.
Trust us with power you despicable turd. We are better stewards of your pathetic jobs and the futures of your ill educated spawn.
I suspect the Dems will put up only a placeholder candidate against Trump in 2020, rather like Mondale against Reagan, saving a possibly viable candidate for the following term.
Tsk tsk when he embraces murderers and war criminals...
Kissinger? That's fake news.
The discussion of political parties here and elsewhere is inaccurate.
What we are really looking at is not really a conflict of parties. Parties are, at best, simply along for the ride.
The Hutu-Tutsi analogy is much more accurate. We are looking at a case of tribal conflict, self-selected tribes to a great degree, but not in many cases, people are generally, even here, born to the tribe. The difference is all about matters of culture and identity. Policies are relevant only to the degree that they assist or hamper a tribe, or serve as a symbolic offense against the other.
Or Sinhalese-Tamil, or the religio-cultural factions of Lebanon.
I wonder if it isn't more emotionally defensive panic than real hate. If Trump is more successful than Obama (as seems likely) what does that say about them and the validity of their worldview? And the more hysterical they get, the more devastating it will be. It sounds extreme but I imagine a few actually will kill themselves. Fiercely entertain delusion and you can make it real.
They are amateur fighters attempting to brawl with a seasoned professional.
-sw
Reading the news and its commentary I feel like Rosenkratz or Guildenstern in Rosencratz and Guildenstern are Dead. Why in the world do all these important and self-important people keep up the act?
" Obama had no business experience" = he never had to work to EARN a living, and all deplorables do work to earn a living.
Contempt for those working productively is the root of all evil.
He rated a Trump nickname. I bet he likes it too.
Abide his ignorance and hate with good grace
This is a profoundly sad statement. Abiding hate with grace is exactly the abiding to do.
Bringing hate to an hate fight is hateful.
In later years I have voted mostly for the more conservative candidate. When younger, I was more liberal. I voted for Trump, and I'm satisfied with my vote. I live in NYC. Most of the people I know voted for Hillary. I try to avoid politics, but the Hillary voters I know are recognizably human except for their drug habits and bizarre perversions. People take politics way too seriously. It's not your religion or your most defining and important characteristic. Lighten up.
The discussion of political parties here and elsewhere is inaccurate.
What we are really looking at is not really a conflict of parties. Parties are, at best, simply along for the ride.
I have always found it useful to examine the divide of public policy issues along the freedom/tyranny axis more than anything. Where does an advocate for a particular policy fall when it comes to using violence in support of coercion of those who disagree.
Frank Bruni, NYC restaurant critic turned Geopolitical mavem for the NYT. Only in America! For his full douchiness, you only have to watch early episodes of Food Network's "Best Thing I Ever Ate"!!!!
"I have always found it useful to examine the divide of public policy issues along the freedom/tyranny axis "
Not I. People (the vast majority) organize along lines of identity, and that comes from all the usual things. Anything else is likely to be a rationalization. How people explain their allegiances can sound plausible, but its unlikely to be correct.
It pays to question your own beliefs and positions - and pose counterfactuals.
If I were THAT guy, or that other guy, would I believe what I believe?
What did that fellow have in his database with which to come up with a system?
Trump hate is like a third party candidate that appeals to every leftie.
People take politics way too seriously. It's not your religion or your most defining and important characteristic.
Not so, William. I know people for whom their politics [especially 'climate change' politics] are their religion and their ONLY defining characteristic. Their zeal is single-minded and without compromise. To them, we who are unbelievers in climate change and the evilness of human existence are the enemy and need to be destroyed. For the good of the planet.
As a former leftist radical in the 60's, I remember the kind of passion I felt about the Vietnam War and the military aggression of Amerika. This is understandable in the very young but ridiculous in the middle aged. Unfortunately, many, especially among the Hollywood set, never really grew up.
”It sounds extreme but I imagine a few actually will kill themselves.”
Or Republican congressmen.
rehajm writes: Trump hate is like a third party candidate that appeals to every leftie.
Trump hate is the Democrats' only platform. They have nothing else but they hope it will be enough. It won't.
"The top-rated comment — by far..."
NYT comments these days seem to be a bunch of people with serious emotional disorders egging each other on. They're all a bad influence on each other.
Maybe there should be something like a Section 8 program for them - get them away from their dysfunctional social environments and redistribute them among sane Americans so that...
On second thought, no, not a good idea.
He hit all of Scott Adams's list of fake news items.
"Maybe a bigger wave of righteous anger will flush him and his Republican enablers out, and down into the metaphorical swamp from which they came."
Come at me, anonymous Times commenter Bro.
Inga: "Lord have mercy. It just keeps getting worse and worse."
"Consumer confidence in April rebounds close to 18-year high"
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/consumer-confidence-in-april-rebounds-close-to-18-year-high-2018-04-24
"The NFIB's Small Business Optimism Index in the US rose by 3 points to 107.8 in May 2018, easily beating market expectations of 105.2."
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/nfib-business-optimism-index
Wages up.
Employment up.
Sounds positively horrific.
No wonder lefties are screaming for a recession.....
What we are really looking at is not really a conflict of parties. Parties are, at best, simply along for the ride.
I disagree. The Democrat Party has existed for nearly two centuries. In 1850 to 18965, it lost its way and went a sort of crazy.
It was an aberration but, on the other hand, it was based in the South and that was an old matter. The South convinced itself that the North was weak and feckless. They thought they could defeat the North in a war. Sherman tried to warn them but they would not listen.
The result was 100 years of disaster. Maybe if Lincoln had lived, it would not have been so bad. But he was assassinated by a southern sympathizer.
Today, we have a somewhat similar situation.
The Democrats, who have been taken over by the political left, are determined to destroy the Bourgeois culture that has characterized this country since 1700.
Why ? They think they have a new and better way but it does not work with the economic system or the family system of the country.
Socialism does not work. Men and women are different. Intact families have been better at raising children for thousands of years.
Can the Democrats win this social civil war ? I doubt it. If they did, it would be the end of the country.
Self preservation is too powerful.
It is telling that those funding this attempt to overturn the Bourgeois Culture, themselves use it in their own lives.
What is going on? A sort of cultural suicide.
I don't think it will work but we will get a clue in November.
The Hutus and the Tutsis had never had a Bourgeois culture.
"Never got the Obama hatred. He was just a Standard issue, Blue State Democrat. Had we elected Hillary or Biden in 2008 - nothing would've changed."
I beg to differ. I never liked or trusted Bill Clinton. From the moment I became aware of him, I had a visceral dislike for him. He just *reeked* of Snake Oil Salesman to me. I was flabbergasted by the number of women who claimed to find him attractive. I still don't understand that, but I can acknowledge that it was true. I disagreed with his politics, but at least he mostly seemed to want to get rich and chase pussy.
Obama, on the other hand, was a stalking horse for Chicago Machine Politics. A nobody with no experience in business, almost no experience in politics, whose background is as much of a mystery as he and his cronies could make it. He hated the US (anyone who sits through years of church services by Reverend "Goddamn America!" can't plausibly claim otherwise), to say nothing of starting his career in the home of a radical leftist bomb-thrower.
Quite aside from introducing (or at least eagerly encouraging) Chicago-style politics in DC, his desires in office were nothing so wholesome as grabbing as much money and pussy for himself as he could. He encouraged division at every opportunity. ran a blatantly law-breaking administration, and helped enable the corruption we see today in the FBI and DOJ acting outraged that Congress--which created them and has legal oversight of them--has the temerity to demand that they explain themselves.
Obama did a great deal of damage to this nation. And yet, I don't hate him with the unhinged lunacy we see in the anti-Trump crowd. I think it's because a lot of them really, truly believed that electing Hilary on the heels of Obama's two terms meant The End of History was truly here at last. They would seize power and hold it forever, and that they could--and they would--grind the deplorables' faces in their powerlessness forever as well.
Then the deplorables had the bad taste to actually elect someone else.
Yes....yes....! Let your anger grow, Democrats! Let it flow through you! Let it consume you!
They would seize power and hold it forever, and that they could--and they would--grind the deplorables' faces in their powerlessness forever as well.
They would finally be prom king and queen.
Can't we all just get along?
Amazing our powers are.
So what’s the Left’s reaction when Trump wins 40 states?
"The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between [classical] liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."
http://www.kirkcenter.org/detail/ten-conservative-principles/
@Roy -- That's a vigorous idea, and I appreciate it. But how you interpret that idea makes all the difference. Some would assign the temporal order to capitalists and the moral order to liberals. I would not do that. Nor would I do the reverse. You cannot know, from a theory, how any individual guides their order spiritual and order temporal.
Holy crap.
The deep-thought-o-meter gets pegged when Inga isn't here throwing baseball bats through the spokes.
These top comments, and the up votes in NYT are perfect example of Russian bots promoting divisiveness in America.
Reddit is full of the same stuff.
De Niro's "Fuck you Trump" was worth it - because it led to Trump's response.
"Punch drunk De Niro"
His new name
I think that Trump has effectively ended De Niro's career. First, the nickname essentially says that De Niro is well over the hill. Secondly, it reminds Red America that he said an expletive about the guy they voted for. He has alienated half the country from any movie he stars in, before the first scene is shot. Maybe he really is that punch drunk from hits taken making movies, but, if so, that just means that he isn't up to making a movie.
People on TV can much better get away with this sort of thing, due to the economics. The problem, economically, making movies is that it is fairly highly leveraged. TV is not. We watched Disney screw up, and maybe destroy, their Star Wars franchise through too much PC, through giving control to SJWs. Opening weekend was weak, but it was the bad buzz that killed the next couple weekend, and it will likely never recover, even with overseas sales. Original projections were for a modest profit. By release, they were hoping for break even. Nope. Now the question is how big is the loss going to be. And whether Disney will ever make another SW movie. Cutting out half the audience by casting De Niro in a major role pretty much guarantees that such a movie doesn't beak even.
Cutting out half the audience by casting De Niro in a major role pretty much guarantees that such a movie doesn't beak even.
DeNiro's movies were also directed especially at the red state voters.
Casino.
The Godfather II
The Good Shepherd.
Wag the Dog.
That's over. He hasn't had a good one, as I see it, in many years
@Henry,
That is the concluding paragraph from "Ten Conservative Principles" by Russell Kirk. Kirk was perhaps the most important conservative writer of the 20th century. He was was one of the first hired by William F. Buckley when he started "National Review". Jerry Pournelle was his student and acolyte.
Some flavor from the essay:
"Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order."
"The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed."
He then eloquently expands on ten principles that constitute the foundation of classical conservatism. The essay is perhaps a five or ten minute read. Over the years I have reread it may times. If you, or any of you, fancy yourself somewhat conservative then you must read it.
http://www.kirkcenter.org/detail/ten-conservative-principles/
We’re not going to win over the deplorable nincompoops who voted for this man.
The author of that comment is likely too simpleminded to realize what an effective piece of pro-Trump black propaganda his sentiments are.
On the other hand, he may be a well-concealed agent provocateur with a Machiavellian mind of the first order.
Either way, it's MAGA as far as the eye can see.
Trump puts on a good show but is unlikely to have much lasting impact.
ARM's forlorn hope.
Henry wrote: Some would assign the temporal order to capitalists and the moral order to liberals.
Capitalism is just a name, a label pasted on human nature by Karl Marx. Smith understood it completely but had the humility not to affix his brand to something any enlightened person can intuit. Capitalism is simply what inevitably arises when an economy evolves beyond simple barter unless coercion is exerted. Voluntary exchange of goods and services will always trend toward capitalism. Non-capitalism always requires coercion to function. Furthermore, because human nature is both pervasive and assertive, the coercive measures required to enforce non-capitalism must always increase in order to suppress the natural tendencies of money economies toward capitalism; one can observe this inevitable process in operation today in the socialist state called Venezuela. Ironically Marx clearly saw the flaw in his own model of history, thus he predicted that communism could not exist until money is abolished, thus forever giving his followers a convenient explanation when the "revolutionary" states they found collapse under the burden of Marxism's contradictions.
Capitalism is no more an ideology than maternal nurture, its what we're programmed to do. It allowed our direct ancestors to form larger and more resilient societies than our more distant relations, thus Homo sapiens colonized the planet while the other members of the genus fell away into the oblivion of extinction. Capitalism can exist under a variety of political structures. Economics under theocracy, autocracy, oligarchy, or democracy can all display capitalistic trends, however, history shows that stable democracies permit capitalism to spread to form a broader base of providers and consumers than political structures, thus increasing wealth faster than the population naturally expands, a phenomenon which confounded Malthus.
Liberalism, on the other hand, is an ideology. Thus capitalism and liberalism are independent non-exclusive domains. Liberalism has precepts and principles drawn from philosophy and history. Capitalism has no precepts. It arises naturally from humankind's apparently unique ability to imagine and realize alternate futures. The man who anticipates famine will accumulate surpluses. When future shortages are less likely the same man will seek to exchange his hoarded surplus for other goods unless a coercive agent confiscates his surplus. The fact that capitalism and liberalism often coexist in the most affluent societies is simply a consequence of liberal's aversion to coercive state power. Absent state coercion or its equivalent capitalism must arise.
If Trump is this rabid idiotic racist unhinged nazi, why was he allowed in their celebrity circle throughout the 80s, 90, and 00s and made numerous tv appearances and had his own successful tv show? The average American can see through Hollywood's BS.
Why can't his critics simply respond back with countering public policy ideas without insults?
Hey, bad press is better than no press, right Bobby? As Michael K noted, Bobby been in the dustbin, forgotten. He's all punched out, yet the attention whore in him rages. Interesting that these types can't see that people were just as upset about Barry O's presidency, but behaved in a more adult fashion.
lost me at honorable Democrats. a shrinking demographic.
"They heard him brag about groping unwilling starlets." No, they didn't.
The corrupt liberal media continue to misrepresent what Trump said, which was: "And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." "Let" means consent, but the Left thinks they can hoodwink the low information, low IQ, voters, who typically vote Democrat.
What Trump was doing, albeit in a very crude way, was explaining evolutionary psychology. Women have always been attracted to men who are rich, famous, and powerful. Don't fight the science!
"They heard him brag about groping unwilling starlets" << This is one of the biggest Dem lies.
Trump claimed, accurately, that lovely starlet-wannabees allow High Status men to do things that they do NOT allow low status men to do. He's bragging about his status. Thru sexual success.
Much of the #MeToo movement, and the many starlet-wannabees who complain about Harvey, show precisely that women DO ALLOW high status men to things.
A huge thing not fully discussed is how much status High Status guys get when they are perceived as Very Sexually Successful. Presidents Trump, Clinton, and JFK were all big womanizers, and at least somewhat admired by men for this, and certainly desired by many (not all) lovely women.
All starlets know they must do some kissing & petting to men they don't love -- it's part of the job, on-screen. Isn't the director's casting couch merely a "screen test"?
These are the people who witnessed the vilest displays of hate, including his encouragement of skinheads to beat up protesters. They heard him brag about groping unwilling starlets. They watched as he mocked a disabled reporter.
This is the usual mix of projection and myth-making that marks the Trump Era, and especially the reaction to it. First of all, the "vilest displays of hate" that I saw were on the Left, marching, burning beating, screaming, calling Trump's family names, using the most disgusting allusions of incest and domination to describe Trump and his immediate family. So much hate! So starting off the rant against "these people" with a hate theme is kind of ironic. I've never seen so much hate as the emotions directed at Trump over the last few years.
The really believe that Trump encouraged skinheads to beat up protesters. But the spin on the Access Hollywood tape is really a lesson in propaganda. "Brag about groping unwilling starlets." Well every word of this other than "brag" is a lie. I mean the famous phrase is "they let you do it when you're a star," so right off they are trying to twist this obviously permissive phrase into part of their #MeToo smear. Apparently "they let you do it" packs special meaning that it takes a dishonest NYT writer to unpack. And then the starlets part, which I guess is intended to make us think of the poor victims of Harvey Weinstein. Was Trump even talking about "starlets"? Who knows? I certainly don't trust this propagandist to interpret it straight. But using the diminutive starlet is a tell.
The "mocking the disabled" story is real chestnut for the resistance. They LOVE this story. And every person I met who cites this a "reason" (as if reasoning is actually part of the process for these emotional haters) has also refused to even LOOK at the Catholics for Trump Web site. Because once you see Trump make this same gesture over and over in different circumstances, mocking several people who are NOT disabled (including one 3-star general), with the exact same hand motions and facial expression, it is clear this means something specific to Trump. It's kind of a nervous "I don't know, woe is me" old-time gesture, almost vaudeville-like in its pantomime. He's mocking their "mock-confusion. And every single time it a person who told Trump one thing in person and said a different thing on the air. It's a bit where Trump calls out people for lying and then acting confused when they are caught.
But all of this is too subtle and nuanced for the people who fancy themselves subtle and nuanced. They don't GET Trump. They think they do, but they are ignorant fools telling their myths to each other to "keep hate alive" just a little longer.
Good point, Mike. And why should the disabled be exempt from mocking? I thought they wanted equal treatment.
Actor: overpaid prima donna speaking words written by writers, wearing clothing and makeup chosen and applied by designers, and walking and standing where told to by directors; thinking what told to by whomever.
Trump gets right to the point.
Post a Comment