Trump... has an advantage that Haley can’t match. He is reviled by the coastal professional classes. That’s a sacred bond with working-class and rural voters who feel similarly slighted and unseen. The connection between working-class voters and a shady real estate billionaire is a complex psychological phenomenon that historians will have to unpack. But it’s a bond no amount of Nikki Haley toughness can break.
Leave it to the historians to figure out who the hell these Trumpsters were.
Why wouldn't you want to understand your fellow citizens? Your aversion to them might have something to do with their aversion to you.
Instead, Brooks writes a column about the abstraction "toughness." Politics is tough. Politicians need to be tough. Nikki Haley is tough. He muses: "I wonder if Haley would be seen as tougher if she were a man." On the toughness of women, he quotes Maya Angelou. At length!
At the end, he pivots: "This campaign is about toughness... but it’s also about identity and class." And it's here that Haley falls short. She "does better among more educated voters... and she does poorly among evangelicals, which these days is as much a nationalist identity category as a religious one."
You don't want to understand them, you want to leave them to the historians, but you are willing to cast aspersions on their religiosity and their patriotism.
पोस्ट्स
८७ टिप्पण्या:
The working class understands leaders who actually show up to work without excuses for why they were missing.
Shouldn’t that be “rural voters who feel similarly” “reviled by the coastal professional classes.”? There’s a big difference between “slighted and unseen” and reviled…. Brooks isn’t following his own thought process, me thinks.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that Trump is not, nor has he ever been “shady.” That’s just campaign rhetoric from Democrats and the media because he, like many of his supporters, is deemed an outsider, and deplorable.
Here is a good rule: If the only explanation that you can come up with is that vast numbers of people are just stupid, there is a good chance that you are missing some relevant information. It’s always easier to perceive a mote in the eye of another than a beam in your own.
Since we are doing aphorisms, another that might apply to a writer at the New York Times has to do with how hard it is to get a man to understand a thing when his living depends on his not understanding it.
Consider the source: Brooks has been wrong about most everything for the last 20 years. He was the neo-con's neo-con with the Iraq war, and a Dick Cheney-like cheerleader. He was the not-actually-conservative conservative put on the PBS NewsHour with Mark Shields to make the lefties feel good about themselves.
Deplatform him for incompetence and spewing useless blabber, along with similar failure and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.
The prosecutions of Trump resemble the Scopes Monkey Trial, where the prosecution used articles of faith as evidence. Racheal Maddow is the real Elmer Gantry here.
The connection between working-class voters and a shady real estate billionaire is a complex psychological phenomenon that historians will have to unpack
Oh lemme unpack- he’s a New York real estate personality with a persona that’s over the top but always an act, though he never breaks character. He was ‘shady’ because people who loathe finance and wouldn’t want to be caught dead understanding economics gave him the label to try and make him go away. When it didn’t work they became deranged, incurably mentally ill, mumbling incoherently while waiting to run down the curtain and join the bleedin’ choir invisible…
The really want to be running against Nikki Haley, don’t they?
Wait: now Trump is a shady real estate billionaire? I thought he was as sleazy reality show star who had gone bankrupt.
In TDS land he can be both.
Schrödinger’s dictionary has only a single state for the term ‘evangelical’- anyone who is not an atheist.
This is a rebuttal to Christie's (accurate) comment that she'll get smoked.
Anyone who mentions her stilettos as much as Haley does isn't tough. Melania in stilettos is tough. No talk, all walk.
Strange that the bank that loaned Trump that money didn’t see him as “shady”.
By way of contrast, those Chinese entities that paid off the Bidens did so precisely because they knew them to be shady.
rehajm said...
The really want to be running against Nikki Haley, don’t they?
It's a win-win.
Hardly a surprise that David Brooks wants to skate along the surface. How else is he to maintain his identity as the saner rational (“kinder, gentler”) conservative? The kind most comfortable with the corporatism that makes mealy-mouthed pronouncements about conservatism while really being more comfortable with the liberals.
Understanding the bond between Trump and the working class means understanding the failure of today’s liberals, which is anathema to Brooks’ brand of conservatism.
They like Haley because she will blindly follow the neocons into whichever war they choose. Trump was accused by Bolton of having the attention span of a gnat, and one can infer from that comment that Trump had no time for Bolton’s wet dreams of setting Eurasia aflame and his certainty that WW3 would play out to America’s advantage, despite the massive risks, and the certainty of huge tolls in dead and maimed, many of whom would likely be American.
It’s a topic of wonderment with me how purported liberal commenters here defend warmongers like Biden and Hillary, and condemn Wikileaks, when Wikileaks showed that the neocons manipulated the rules to screw Bernie Sanders out of the presidency. Not all of these commenter are CTIL sock puppets.
Why wouldn't you want to understand your fellow citizens?
Because then you legitimize them, and pretty soon you might start to see them as human beings. (Can't have that, obviously.)
Shady, says the closeted Grand Central glory hole enthusiast.
Shady is collecting chump change bribes from corrupt foreign governments. Shady is blaming an innocent truck driver for his wife’s horrible driving, even accusing him of being drunk. Shady is banging your daughter in the shower (prove me wrong, you all know it’s true. His entire fucking adult life is shady scumbag highly bigoted politician. He’s a Democrat, he’s “shady” by default. There’s no way he’s getting out of that convention as the nominee.
I hope he dies in conscious agony.
John Bolton is another one who deserves that conscious agonizing death. Frankly there’s a list of ‘em.
Brooks should read this ...
Kitchen Table Populism is Up for Grabs
The “democracy” that they are defending is one where a cabal of insiders and billionaires can decide that an election where the choices were Trump and Sanders simply could not be allowed to happen. When they speak of a, they call it “our democracy,” as if they thought of us as being part of their tribe of the powerful. What they meant, of course was “their democracy.” It’s like Milo Minderbender’s “everybody has a share,” when only he got rich.
I read the column. His writing does Haley no favors and Trump no harm. With guys like Brooks in her corner, Haley doesn't need any enemies.....The NYT pointed me to a column by Brett Stephens. Stephens claims that he's not voting for Trump but goes on to list the reasons why Republicans find him so appealing. Stephens made a convincing case for Trump's election.....I like Vivek. He's smart and energetic, but he's never worked in government. I don't know if succeeding in governing is an admirable skill, but it's a skill..... This will be an unpopular opinion here, but I think there's something to be said for a politician--a professional politician--who doesn't go out of his way to antagonize the media and who can find a way to get the deep state people quiescent if not acquiescent to his goals. DeSantis, Pence, Haley are all suitable candidates for framing, but I guess they don't have what the moment demands.
They like Haley because she will blindly follow the neocons into whichever war they choose.
Dont pay attention to what they say. Pay attention to who is paying them
Haley leveraged her soul, to be prez, Pay back will be with her on her belly taking it like a man.
"Anyone who mentions her stilettos as much as Haley does isn't tough."
Haley is all talk and no heels.
Vivek has campaigned in all 99 Iowa counties. Twice. He nearly always takes questions. And answers them at length and on video. He takes on dissenters. Never a misstep. He does 5-6 events per day; 8 am to 8 pm.
Vivek is way tougher than Nikki, Ron or Don.
NYT has no idea what makes these unwashed, deplorables tick
New corporate motto “All the news on the upper east side that is fit to print”
Why wouldn't you want to understand your fellow citizens? [Emphasis in the original]
In the immediate aftermath of the 2016 election, back when Donald Trump was still President-elect, David Brooks vowed to get out into the American heartland and do just that — understand what motivated the Trump voters. I’ve been laughing at him ever since, wondering out loud whether he ever got west of Newark except in the fuselage of an airplane 6 or 7 miles up in the air.
But there’s another possibility. What if he did make some sort of effort to understand Trump voters, and what what he learned about himself and the people in his bubble so repelled him that he chose to drop the effort and crawl back into his bubble where he can suck his thumb for comfort? Just a hypothesis.
I've mentioned before that Nikki has a propensity to try to project masculine toughness. It's a pose. A calculated political persona. It's not real.
Toughness requires a solid identity and commitment to core values that doesn't waver under attack by others. Trump has it. She doesn't. And neither do fake conservatives like Brooks. That's why he's taken in by her posing.
Nikki is not tough. She'll fold like a cheap suit when pressed by the GOPe or the Democrats on an issue key to the Republican base. Think illegal alien invasion, fake-gender hysteria, grooming in schools.
NEVER-NIKKI.
"a shady real estate billionaire," writes a member of the self-selecting elite class who wouldn't know an accomplishment if it came up to him and gave him a business card. Trump played the real estate development game according to its rules; others have done the same. Smarmy & smug types like Brooks, who like government employees are parasitic to the producing class, are loathsome. Most are Democrats.
They can't see that Trump's growing strength comes from the resentment that we have for these nannies.
BTW, “fold like a cheap suit,” comes from the fact that cheap suits were sold folded in boxes from shelves, at one time, and tailored suits didn’t even have creases. I learned that from a 19th century novel, so now you have to know it.
Brooks getting a clue remember he thought the huntress the one who stood against obama was a cancer in the party.
Where is our Margaret Thatcher? I've been waiting since high school!
In the absence of an Iron Lady, I'm willing to look at Vivek... eventually. This year he doesn't have a shot. And I'm disappointed that DeSantis also seems to be out of the running - I, like William above, think there is a place for an experienced pol. But this year?
The Democrat gatekeepers have made this election not about a choice between two known quantities, which is what it is, but instead about what kind of person you, the voter, are. Are you a good person or a bad one? A smart one or a stupid one? A reasonable one or an extremist? Tolerant or bigoted? No wonder Brooks doesn't want to understand what he acknowledges (despite his nominal Republicanism) is the other side - ewww.
We go from Maureen Dowd's "resentment.. fears"
to David Brooks' "slighted and unseen".
Those poor Trump supporters are a pathetic and pitiable lot. At least that's a small improvement from deplorables clinging to guns and religion.
The next self serving, condescending cheap shot will be the old "Don't they see that they're acting against their own self interest" canard.
Begley, if we need someone to travel across Iowa and talk to small groups of people, Vivek will be our guy.
But that doesn't say anything about how he would effectively govern with zero experience. Having money and time to waste on small ball is not a qualification for the job he is trying to get.
Brooks doesn’t really need to wait for historians to decipher Trump voters for him. All he really needs to do is pick up a copy of the NYT’s rival newspaper. Salena Zito has done a nice job at the NY Post and elsewhere explaining the Trump phenomenon from the perspective of his most ardent supporters since Trump first descended the escalator. She starts from the premise that “everywhere in America is the middle of somewhere” — a concession that David Brooks and his fellow travelers seem unwilling to make.
"understanding the people he doesn't want to understand."
They not only don't want to understand, their own smug sense of moral superiority makes them unable to understand.
Reminds me of the old Jonah Goldberg bit:
"whenever I read liberals reporting about the goings-on of conservatives I always get the nature-documentary vibe. A liberal reporter puts on his or her Dian Fossey hat in order to attempt to write another installment of Conservatives in the Mist."
The connection between wealthy elites and a dementia-ridden, corrupt, political hack is a complex psychological phenomenon that historians will have to unpack.
“…teh caged warbler sings!”
Mark
Trump had no experience and he did very well. We need an outsider.
Of course jonah lost the plot around 2015
David Brooks' paycheck depends upon him not understanding, much less empathizing with, the deplorable red state types. If he had any doubts about that, the defenestration of James Bennet made it clear. To be a successful propagandist, it is best like Goebbels to have no balls at all.
“Complex psychological phenomenon” my ass. He is the only one of the top who is not a complete phony. In the town hall forum especially he comes off as honest and consistent and Haley does not. She and to a lesser extent Desantis are standard issue GOP politicians. Trump has absolutely NEVER been or appeared to be a standard pol.
"What Makes Nikki Haley Tougher Than the Rest."
She melted at Vivek's first little swipe.
"voters who feel similarly slighted and unseen"
Oh, yeah, if only they would "see" us deplorables, then everything would be fine.
"Why wouldn't you want to understand your fellow citizens?"
Because 1. you feel superior and 2. you don't have to and 3. it pays for a NYT columnist to display contemptuous nonunderstanding.
"he quotes Maya Angelou. At length!"
See, in its tone-deaf absurdity this is on par with Dowd spouting her ludicrous distortions. Maya! As if we needed another reason to despise him.
"This campaign is about toughness... but it’s also about identity and class."
Actually, it's about the country. Do we want the invasion to continue and the debt to rise and DEI to flourish and the US to get weaker and the green transition to devastate our quality of life? Or not? Of course, Trump has no definite answers, and his debt/Covid performance does not bode well, but whatever he comes up with is bound to be better than Dem policy.
"you are willing to cast aspersions on their religiosity and their patriotism"
Both of which are inherently deplorable anyway.
Stop saying "educated" people when you really mean "degreed" people. Having a degree doesn't make you educated.
Effing Tim is on righteous fire today. I hope he doesn’t set any Vermont forests alight. Go Tim go!
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/01/past_time_to_undo_obamas_fundamental_transformation.html
would Any One have EVER heard of Nimarata Randhawa if she was a he?
I've met Vivek.. He bought me pizza (it was pepperoni, and tasty).. WHAT has Nikki ever done for me?
IF (due to lawfare, or assassination) it comes down to Biden vs. Nikki..
HOW would you know which was which?
Neither is an actual Person.. Both are just fabricated constructs made by the Powers That Be
Ann said about Brooks
"You don't want to understand them, you want to leave them to the historians, but you are willing to cast aspersions on their religiosity and their patriotism. "
thank you.
This leaves Democrats in the awkward position of both dreading Trump and rooting for him. The party who figures out how to not nominate their current front runner will win.
It doesn't take future historians. We exist all around him, all over this vast country. We number in the tens, if not hundreds of millions of people disillusioned with our government and tired of having to play long with people who call themselves 'experts' yet have decades of blundering behind them. Blundering that we always have to pay for and clean up ourselves.
Really- it would be a great boon to the NYT to hire some writers from places outside of NYC and DC. Say...hailing from Kearney, NE. Or Kalamazoo, MI. Maybe even Sarasota, FL. Just...other places where actual other people with other thoughts live. We're really not hard to find or hard to figure out. We're very up front, very normal, and very numerous.
Stop saying "educated" people when you really mean "degreed" people. Having a degree doesn't make you educated.
@PB, or perhaps “indoctrinated.”
You could take everything I wrote the other day about Maureen Dowd and it applies again to David Brooks (except maybe the cock sucking part, but who knows).
Brooks is just another entitled, self important “elite” who does not want to lose his place. He can’t understand us rubes because none of the elites can. Oh he’ll keep telling us what we’re supposed to hear, and subtly (or no so) call us names.
And he’ll write about Nikki being tough in an effort to get us to vote for her (a woman the elite DC class can control). Makes me want to vote Trump even more. If Brooks likes Nikki, I don’t.
heh.
The prosecutions of Trump resemble the Scopes Monkey Trial, where the prosecution used articles of faith as evidence. Racheal Maddow is the real Elmer Gantry here.
@Tim - & a nice hearty bold.
Remember after the 2016 election, when the media mockingbirds promised to venture out of DC and NY and learn more about those strange voters who cast their ballot for DJT? Yeah, that never happened and now 8 years later they are still clueless as to why anyone would vote for Trump. They now spend their time and use their column space moaning over the fact that those uneducated and vulgar fly-over voters know nothing about real politics, do not respect the mockingbird's educated opinions, and refuse to vote as directed.
Thank god, for the conservative side, that the NY Times has for years latched on to such completely ineffectual editorialists as Maureen Dowd, Nicholas Kristof, Tom Friedman, Paul Krugman, Gail Collins, and David Brooks. Now THERE'S a political murderers row for you. Their columns must appeal to a small coterie of upper West Side intellectuals in their 60's and 70's, but it still amazes me in 2024 that these writes are who the NY Times chooses to have represent them.
Is this the best the left can do? These are the most un-persuasive morons you could stumble across. I guess legacy is everything.
Haley: "I am woman, hear me spout cliches and send your kids to war."
Nice elevator pitch...
Let me unpack the Trump phenomenom for Brooks. Half the electorate reviles the progressive leftist Democrats, and desired a candidate to fight against them and win, having tired of candidates who lost to the left with a mere appearance of honor.
Brooks needs to admit that when Trump is gone, the problem Trump addressed for voters will remain. The next avatar of opposition to the left might live up to the left's demonization.
@gilbar (9:36), IF Donald Trump were to fall to lawfare or assassination, the Republican nominee would be Ron DeSantis.
I read the opinion piece, but I found that Brooks is not as complimentary of Haley as one might think. He's pretty wishy-washy, isn't he?
"In general, Haley does better among more educated voters than less, slightly better among men than women, and she does poorly among evangelicals, which these days is as much a nationalist identity category as a religious one...." Here, Brooks is making life simple for his fellow disdainers. This is his 'Deplorables' statement - 'look at all these Trump supporters, they're easily categorized: Religious ! Evangelical !! Nationalist !!! (softly: Insurrectionists ! Racists ! Misogynist Homophobes !) '. There's something in there for everybody to hate, isn't there? Just consider it a group, hate them, and go on your way.
Conclusion: Brooks wrote the piece as ordered, but he's no fan of Nikki Haley, he just hates her less than his Burning Fire of Hate for Trump.
Pompous putz ponders. One of the things that the progressive pundits liked to talk about where Joe Biden was concerned was his "empathy" for others. And they said that his empathy set him apart from the Bad Orange Man and would restore "normalcy" to the White House. Well that empathy is mostly shown to his handlers and the coastal elite types.
Trump is rough, crude, and sometimes a bit of a boor. But he does occasionally show some empathy for others, and the folks in the class that Hillary labeled as "Deplorables" can feel that.
Pompous putz ponders. One of the things that the progressive pundits liked to talk about where Joe Biden was concerned was his "empathy" for others. And they said that his empathy set him apart from the Bad Orange Man and would restore "normalcy" to the White House. Well that empathy is mostly shown to his handlers and the coastal elite types.
Trump is rough, crude, and sometimes a bit of a boor. But he does occasionally show some empathy for others, and the folks in the class that Hillary labeled as "Deplorables" can feel that.
In Brooks-world, only deplorables favor Trump. No Trump supporter with academic or media credentials exists to argue the case for the past POTUS. PBS hasn't had a Trump supporter on since they dumped Matt Schlapp six or seven years ago, and his high-rise neighbors probably went for Biden by at least 97% (and he's not going to engage in some kind of conversation with the doorman) so the mystery abides.
The connection between working-class voters and a shady real estate billionaire is a complex psychological phenomenon that historians will have to unpack.
Aside from everything else, Trump voters understand the implications of "Fuck You Money," and what it empowers the right, trusted person to do with it. And, most conspicuously now, the necessity of fuck you money needed in a law-fare war of attrition against the establishment Deep State.
It's why Trump supporters and others in the working-class will play the lottery. Remember the top-40 hit: "Take this job and shove it"?
Trump, Musk and Ramaswamy level "fuck you money."
Not, Niki Bird Brain joins the Boeing board and buys beach front mansion money, much less Biden sell-out the nation to buy beach-front mansion money.
How's the second wife working out, Dave? You've been fucking her for almost six years now, isn't it time to trade her in on a newer model? Talk to Sulzberger, he can find you another popsy to flirt with. He knows what you like, Dave, and he knows where to find it. You're in good hands, you squishy little sack of shit.
Do you realize how long all these useless "columnists" have been bloviating at the NYT? It's like they have tenure. Dowd, Blow, Brooks, what's-his-fuck the restaurant critic. They have been blowing the same shrill little horns for decades. They're like ruminants; once a week, they crank out a new blat of indignation, and collect another paycheck.
"Wait: now Trump is a shady real estate billionaire? I thought he was as sleazy reality show star who had gone bankrupt."
He is large, he contains multitudes.
Sassy but not tough, like handlers think you win elections with tag lines. I wish she could be counted on for good policies but no, she desperately searches for her where’s the beef? moment…
"We need an outsider."
Trump is an insider?
"The prosecutions of Trump resemble the Scopes Monkey Trial, where the prosecution used articles of faith as evidence. Racheal Maddow is the real Elmer Gantry here."
We have the thread winner, and I am not even halfway down the page yet.
David Brooks is the literal definition of an intellectual whore. Every now and again he seems to realize he should have spit more rather than swallow.
Brooks like Haley because the pro-Trump people don't.
But Brooks can't understand why the pro-Trump people don't like her.
"[Trump] is reviled by the coastal professional classes."
Just wait until Nikki gets nominated, only to find that she is now the female version of Hitler. It is the fate that awaits every candidate with [R] behind the name. What sets Trump (and before him Reagan) apart is not giving a damn what Our Betters think of him.
Of course, the NYT won't let me read Brooks' column without paying, and that ain't going to happen, so I do have a question. Besides who he's fucking these days, I mean. I'm sure we'll find out in due course. But where does he get the idea that Nikki Haley is tough? Tough like a cheap steak? Not even. Does he mean that she drove a tough bargain with her new owners? I think she sold out cheap, myself, but I guess they showed her the figures and it all must have penciled out. She's not damaged goods, exactly, but she is past her prime. She's not going to be Governor again, and she isn't going to the Senate. She gets to pretend to be a Presidential candidate, but that really only has serious value the first time. To revisit the "steak" metaphor, she fried while the pan was hot.
The bottom line for the NYT is to keep the identity politics and the digs at Trump and his supporters alive.
For us it began when we learned from The Lightbringer that we are "bitter clingers," and Hillary the Grifter followed it up with "deplorables." People like Brooks see no benefit from understanding people like us.
If/when the military aged young men pouring over our border under QuidProJoe's sponsorship stage an Oct. 7th on our soil or if we have to fight a real war Brooks and his ilk will wonder why we or our progeny are not available to cover his fat ass. The answer is, we will be in our "rural Christian" communities with our guns and Bibles protecting our own and our neighbors.
Mark
But that doesn't say anything about how he would effectively govern with zero experience.
How did Vivek make his first $half-a=billion?
Did leverage his decades of experience in the Pharma busisness?
Nope he branched out from hedge fund manager and told big pharma they were doing it wrong. Became the youngest person ever to earn his way to Billionaire ever
While experience is valuble. The Truley successful have an enterpernurial zeal, and the ability to evalute risk benenfit equations.
You know who has car manufacturing Experience? 1000 people before you get to Musk.
Shooting rockets into space? Not NASA. Musk (can't squeeze him into a category) an line marketer, and a guy that runs a 4th rate airline company. All three with zero experience, and all three doing what NASA couldn't do. (you can add internet provider to the list of stuff Musk has no experience in.
Lack of experience? Who had more listeners that any radio personality ever? Rush Limbaugh. With a noontime NATIONAL broadcast. Something every single experienced radio expert said could not be done. Noon time was time for local content. Not some National syndicated talking head call in show.
"But that doesn't say anything about how he would effectively govern with zero experience."
You know who has experience? Joe Biden. Who Democrats have pointed out has been wrong about every foreign policy position for 40 years.
Yea, got to have experience
It's interesting to speculate; if Hillary Clinton were as good-looking as Nikki Haley, would she have been elected in 16? You know she thinks she would have. All us fucking deplorables would have rolled right over and let her Khadaffi us if she were just a little easier on the eyes. She's sure of it. It gnaws at her guts, too.
It's really kind of strange that no one talks about how good-looking Nikki Haley is. Like we're all supposed to be pretending it doesn't make any difference. For Christ's sake, she'd never have been elected to anything if she weren't strikingly attractive. Name two interesting facts about Nikki Haley. See?
That's gotta just piss Hillary's pig. She knows she's a fucking frump, and a harridan, and Bill only married her 'cause he knew he could cheat on her a million times and there wasn't a damned thing she would or could do about it. Although Webb Hubbell must have come as a bit of a surprise.
Nikki Haley is not good looking. But if Hillary were good looking, she might have been less bitter.
"Just wait until Nikki gets nominated, only to find that she is now the female version of Hitler. It is the fate that awaits every candidate with [R] behind the name."
This is what is puzzling about Vivek's supporters. They like him because (for one) he doesn't have Trump's baggage. Don't they understand that should he somehow become the Republican nominee, five minutes later he'll have baggage? Lots of it.
Mark said...
Begley, if we need someone to travel across Iowa and talk to small groups of people, Vivek will be our guy.
"But that doesn't say anything about how he would effectively govern with zero experience."
Yeah. Mark who voted for Biden said that. He couldn't possibly do any worse than the incometent old man you voted for. I'll go further and say that an illiterate Bangkok street whore could do a better job than Joe Biden.
Well. De gustibus. I find Haley attractive - physically. But that's probably because I'm especially attracted to brunettes. And, also, blondes. I think the tendency of American novelists to make the gorgeous chick romantic interest be red-haired with green eyes is just a lack of imagination. I'm not saying I'm not attracted to redheads. There's a lot to be said for redheads, especially if they have that cream-and-roses complexion that absolutely drives me all the live-long day around the bend with a lust almost ..
Anyway. It is tempting to say, that women are attractive, and the failure of a male to find any particular woman attractive is, precisely, a failure. On his part. And as a simple question of gallantry, that is how it is. But the unhappy, and rather perplexing, reality is that some women are more attractive than others. Same age, same number of tits ...
"But if Hillary were good looking, she might have been less bitter."
I suspect you've got that exactly backwards. There are numerous photos of Hillary as a young woman, and what I take away from them is a conscious and deliberate unwillingness to present herself as "attractive". She was a "feminist", meaning a female person who found it demeaning to present herself in a way that men -- MEN! -- would find attractive.
I can understand that. "We make her paint her face and dance". Why, exactly, should a woman consciously and carefully craft her appearance in the world so as to be attractive to men? Why not present as a couch, or a sofa? Maybe a duvette. But it's just a hair megalomaniacal to suppose that this will lead to your installation as President of the United States. I'd say she's doing pretty good to have gotten away with stealing four or five hundred million dollars. Although, again, it's pretty clear that the fox is gnawing at her vitals. What she has accomplished is as dust in her mouth. What she has failed to accomplish is ashes.
See, here's the thing. Hillary is a frump. She is a harridan. And why should she be otherwise? Why should she have to hide what she is, to make herself attractive to men in order to achieve the things that she wishes to achieve? Why should anything, any conceivable circumstance, take any form other than the form necessary to Hillary Clinton's being whatever she wishes to be? Having whatever she wants to have, feeling whatever she wants to feel.
I understand, and even share, her rage and hatred, for a World that refuses -- that fails -- to find that which we offer desirable. How long am I expected to put up with those who cannot appreciate my merit? Who judge me by criteria that are wholly inappropriate? I am a fine thing, a thing of excellence. A world that cannot appreciate my merit is a world that is lacking. As Caligula put it, "I would that all of Rome had a single neck."
Let us be clear. Is it, that you would have your countenance be different, that others might find you beautiful?
No, not at all. I would not be different than I am, simply that the World might find me more to its liking. I am not ashamed of what I am. The world should be ashamed that it does not find me lovely.
Would you, then, prefer that the World's liking might be different than it is, that the World might find you comely?
No, I like the World just as it is, and would have it no other way. Except only that it might perceive its error, and understand that what I am is precisely what I ought to be, and that I am the model and the exemplar, of what is beautiful and comely. The World should see clearly that which is true, which is that I am beautiful.
What you desire, then, is that everything might remain precisely as it is, in every particular, except that everyone should understand it differently, so that all might wish to be as you are.
I would that all of Rome had a single neck!
"For us it began when we learned from The Lightbringer that we are "bitter clingers," and Hillary the Grifter followed it up with "deplorables." People like Brooks see no benefit from understanding people like us."
John McCain called us "wacko birds". Joe Biden called us "barbarians at the gate". There is a reason why we hate politicians that have been trying to rule us for over 50 years. They suck. They had to stop Trump because Trump was getting things done in the 4 years he was there, that they have been promising us for 50 years and haven't got around to doing yet. Can't have that, can we??
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा