Those establishment elites
The attack on the GOP from within (that is, the civil war as opposed to the separate attack from the left) relies on words such as “elites” and “establishment.” But those are classic leftist words—as pejoratives anyway, with “establishment” being a leftist word that I recall being popular in the 60s, along with “the system” (which I don’t hear that much about nowadays, along with “the man”).
It’s all another example of how leftist activist techniques are used by the alt-right (some of whom are actual leftists), as well as by talk show hosts and by other pundits, to stir up the “masses” (another leftist word) against the GOP. Now the GOP has its deep flaws, but it’s been nowhere near as bad as people say, and not even remotely as bad as the Democrats have been.
Even Newt Gingrich, who has been an “elite” for many decades, has gotten into the “elites” act (the first three quotes are Gingrich’s tweets; the rest of it is from Allahpundit at Hot Air):
“Washington elites mock Trump for mispronouncing Tanzania. They don’t get it. He said the most important word correctly: America. He gets it.”
“This was a serious foreign policy speech by Trump. It is worth reading and thinking about. It will be ridiculed by Washington elites.”
“Elites have to attack Trump’s foreign policy speech because he is challenging their core values and failures.”
Newt farking Gingrich, lecturing other people about their elitism. He’s an academic by trade. He’s been a Beltway fixture for nearly 40 years, half that time as a congressman and Speaker and half as a regular in the conservative media complex. He’s a rich man thanks to his businesses and the lecture circuit. There’s not a political cocktail party in America that he couldn’t get into. He might as well have a recurring part on “House of Cards.” If Newt’s not “elite,” who is? I don’t mean that rhetorically; I’m asking sincerely. If Newt Gingrich no longer qualifies as elite, is there anyone so elite that the stain of elitism can’t be expunged even by slobbering regularly over Trump? I’ll spot you Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, but their elite status is partly a product of their positions…Similarly, is there such a thing as a populist in good standing who’s anti-Trump? Mike Lee, for instance, got elected to the Senate six years ago when grassroots tea partiers tossed out Bob Bennett on his ear at the state convention. He’s been a firm anti-establishment conservative ever since. He’s also a Cruz ally and a Trump opponent, as principled conservatives tend to be. Does Lee still qualify as populist or is he, if not an elitist himself, some sort of elite stooge? Like I say, we should all get straight on the rules.
If Gingrich had merely praised Trump’s speech, I’d have no problem with it. It’s that “elites” business that is so absurd, coming from Gingrich’s mouth.
Leaving Gingrich aside, I’ve often compared this rage at the “elites” and the “establishment” to getting angry at one parent when another has abused you—that is, getting even more angry at the parent you think has failed to protect you than against the abuser. To me it’s another indication of the triumph of emotion and demagoguery over reason. There’s an awful lot of that going around.
This campaign season has been sad but edifying. Fortunately for me, I never idealized the leaders of the right, nor the press, nor pundits, nor bloggers, nor the left. But still, they have all managed to exceed my negative expectations.
[NOTE: It’s not a new, post-Trump position of mine to feel that this war on the “establishment” is destructive to the right. I’ve felt this way for many years, and written about it many times, for example here, here, here, here, and here.]
[ADDENDUM: In wondering who Trump would choose as VP, I think it will be a political insider to counter the idea that Trump’s not serious and not experienced. It occurs to me it could be Newt, or perhaps Jeff Sessions. But there’s a fair amount of competition for that prize, including of course Chris Christie. But if Trump decided to go with a fellow outsider, Ben Carson would make sense, if Trump’s courting the black vote.]
All talk radio did was boost our self esteem to disproportionate heights causing us to make terrible decisions and overestimate our strength. And now they will profit from another 8 years of Clintons as people get more and more frustrated. Until, that is, they just check out altogether and the whole merry-go-round ends.
Of course its destructive. It’s also become unavoidable because the GOP has become so unduly influenced by an oligarchy who place their agenda of maintaining and increasing their power, wealth and status, so far ahead of the country’s welfare that, through their collaboration with the left, they threaten its very survival. Nor is that assertion hyperbole.
They know that illegal immigration is a profound cultural threat. They know that unchecked migration by people whose foremost loyalty is to an ideology fundamentally opposed to “life, liberty and the [individual’s] pursuit of happiness” is an as yet unrealized mortal threat to our republic.
They know that the nation’s indebtedness and trade imbalances will result in economic collapse. They know that the continued decline of America’s middle class will result in a transformation of America into one of only the wealthy and poor.
They know all of this and quite frankly my dear, they don’t give a damn.
Geoffrey Britain:
It’s not necessary to focus on them instead of the Democrats.
It’s not necessary to expect the GOP to have done more than was in their power to do to stop the Democrats.
It’s not necessary to ignore the good things the GOP did do, and in particular the other things that the Democrats would have done had the GOP not been able to stop them.
It’s not necessary to say that someone like Cruz, who was fighting almost alone against the GOP “establishment,” is somehow complicit in it, and that someone like Trump, who played along with that establishment and courted it is somehow against it.
[the visas have depressed salaries to the point that a nyc school janitor makes more than most programmers do… ]
Computerworld
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3062062/it-careers/with-fiorina-pick-cruzs-h-1b-stance-now-in-question.html
With Fiorina pick, Cruz’s H-1B stance now in question
first he was for it, and wanted a 500% increase
then seeing trump winning, he was against it
then he was for it but with a minimum wage of 110k
now he decided to tap one of the people that were part of the first moves to take work away from the USA and send it to foreign lands… funny, but when she was running no one pointed that out
[edited for length by n-n]
Artfldgr:
This on Trump and H-1B visas.
Art…
Carly was chasing the train — to source from Taiwan, et. al.
By the time she was CEO, Taiwan was ALREADY hyper dominant in LAPTOPS — which was where all the growth and profits were.
Taiwan was ALREADY making everyone else’s laptop – – per their specs and branding.
Eventually, the Taiwanese shifted their production to Red China.
That’s how things worked out.
(Foxconn is a Taiwanese outfit.)
The shift from PC boxes to laptops — and then iPads — was something that Carly didn’t start, control, or stop.
She was CHASING her peer competitors — who were ALREADY sourcing out of Taiwan.
So her decision was really made for her by the flow of competition and events.
And that’s how many decisions are made, aren’t they?
Neo,
You ought to critique the speech. It’s ripe for criticism.
See https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/trumps-flawed-foreign-policy/
Rothman’s piece offers a different quick take on Trump’s speech than the McCarthy piece. I think Rothman’s quick take is rhetorically more useful because it criticizes Trump’s contradictions between issues rather than with Trump’s history. It can be fleshed out further.
There’s clearly an active attempt by outsiders to break the GOP, the only existing entity with the political strength to do anything to hamper Democrats, under the guise of “It’s not doing a good enough job of accomplishing all that you hope and dream it will do – so by blowing it to smithereens, you will A) show those no-good ^#%#$ how much you hate them for not being good enough and/or B) pave the way for the Perfect Political Party to grow, like a magical mushroom, in its place.” ‘
It’s so obviously absurd that I feel like I’m watching cruel neighborhood bullies tormenting “challenged” kids. Seriously, are we this stupid? Maybe we do deserve to disappear into history.
(Disclaimer. All-caps items in the next paragraph are because this really has to be said out loud. I’ll be brief.)
The people pushing for the destruction of the GOP are NOT OUR FRIENDS. Not our allies. Not people who harbor good intentions for conservatives or conservative American values. Yes, there are a few of us among them – angry disgruntled party purists – but the new faces egging everyone on WANT US TO DESTROY OURSELVES. Do not accommodate them.
They want us to attack each other and destroy the political party that’s a danger to them. It’s an indication that they are weak, and they know it. A moment came when we might have had a victory over them – perhaps just a delay in the destruction of Western civilization, but a victory nonetheless – and they have dealt with that by stirring up a civil war in our camp. While we fight each other, they’re sitting over there getting ready to run roughshod over whatever remains of us after we’ve fired the last shots of our circular firing squad.
They had a losing horse and they know it. They’re hoping to limp through this election cycle with a corruptocrat hag that even Democrats don’t want to vote for, and they’re going to be able to do it by inciting a literal civil war amongst us. It’s pathetic that some of us lap up the lefty-left “establishment” and “elite” cr*p like the tards that they take us for. Aren’t we better than that? (/end slightly PG-rated rant)
Geoffrey Britain Says: They know that illegal immigration is a profound cultural threat.
Not to them… but for them it’s the lesser of two evils… which do you think would piss the public off and derail their designer future of remolding the public through destruction of family, eugenics, etc?
since 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade, there’s been “well over” 54 million abortions. This does not include the number of women who waited too long, or because they went to work they decided to have one child or none. for everywoman that has no children another woman HAS to have 5 to just maintain the population.
IF you compute the difference between the open borders to hide the decline and the replacement of the exterminated and never born, what would the outcome in the USA have been?
Yes, illegal immigration is a profound cultural threat. But to the old culture or the new one they are forcing and molding for themselves and the future? ie. The imports are destroying the old culture more than the new one, and the old one is also dying out as there are no more families and people to carry it forwards, it’s a highway of broken bodies and death as we go forwards.
The calculations are not that hard, but in a society where people wont read whats recommended or research squat, well, I am tempted to say why bother.
Go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States
In general we think of a generation being about 25 years – from the birth of a parent to the birth of a child [earlier times they use 20 years]
In 1970 there were 193,491 abortions… that’s two generations.. the average birth rate before feminism was 3-5 kids… the average after is 1-2… if you take the top amount 5, and two generations, that 193k would lead to 4,837,275 million. If you use 3, its 1,741,419
[edited for length by n-n]
Neo, it is not surprising that words no longer have time tested logical meaning. For me it kind of started with re-definition of Gay. But, that is another story.
For people like Gingrich, Guliani, Trump–even Palin– to use the word elite to describe others in a pejorative sense, makes no sense; except as the height of hypocrisy.
Not sure how GB came up with the term Oligarchy to define the GOP Establishment. I guess he means the people who actually run for office; the people who work to get others elected; and the people who provide the funds for campaigns. New definition of Oligarchy; or elite for that matter. To be acceptable in the eyes of certain RINOS (I use the term with forethought) you must be none of those. The good guys are now those on the sidelines throwing rocks, and occasionally, rhetorical bombs.
Off topic. I should think that Boehner’s comments should be the best endorsement that Cruz could have among anyone yet to choose between him and Trump.
Thanks for the link to that Commentary article on Trump’s foreign policy speech, Eric. The man is a fool, and makes Hillary look like a genius and stalwart leader by comparison.
By the way, the countries the imports are coming from are not losing or balancing their places with influx of others. so in essence… if you look at global numbers, they are shrinking to extermination…
60.3% of the world population is Asian
14.5% of the world population is African
11.4% of the world population is Europe
7.6% of the world population is north America
out of the whole stats pages they do NOT let you know which race groups have what count… other than to tell you 20% is han Chinese. In fact any numbers to let you know what the actual number is, are not available or easy to get!!! they will give you density, and ethnicity, and all manner of other data, but you have to work really really hard to figure out the actual numbers in europe.
from the demographics of the US you get The non-Hispanic White percentage (63% in 2012) tends to decrease every year
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world
by 2050 Europe is predicted to have just 7 per cent of the world population, and a third that of Africa
so they are going to go from 11% to 7% with a third of those being replacements from africa
One demographer, who didn’t want to be named for fear of being called racist, said: ‘It’s a matter of pure arithmetic that, if nothing else happens, non-Euro peans will become a majority and whites a minority in the UK. That would probably be the first time an indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority in its historic homeland.’
The politicians are favoring islam cause islam dominates outside the dying population.. there is no advantage to kissing up to the people leaving to hang out with dinosaurs when there is this huge growing population that hates them, is replaceing them, and will be who you have to kiss up to to have a majority.
now imagine if the people knew what was happening to them…
wait till the ladies figure out what they did to them, their families, and futures…
I guess wanting to exist is racist.
neo,
It is absolutely necessary to focus on the GOP instead of the Democrats because we can do nothing to stop them if our political leaders are collaborating with the democrats and… they are. Why do you think that Boehner hates Cruz so deeply?
I do not expect the GOP to do more than is in their power, to stop the Democrats… are you actually taking the position that had, the majority of the Republican Congress been made up of men and women like Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions… that the GOP wouldn’t have done much more? That is the standard by which the GOP must be judged because nothing less is sufficient to the challenge from the Left.
“It’s not necessary to ignore the good things the GOP did do, and in particular the other things that the Democrats would have done had the GOP not been able to stop them.”
Would you have accepted a report card with a ‘D’ in arithmetic from your young son had he defended with, “but I got a B in history”!
“It’s not necessary to say that someone like Cruz, who was fighting almost alone against the GOP “establishment,” is somehow complicit in it, and that someone like Trump, who played along with that establishment and courted it is somehow against it.”
I have never even implicated such, much less said that Cruz was complicit, nor that Trump isn’t blatantly contradicting past positions.
You’ve misstated my position several times now and I realize that it’s difficult to keep the various positions of your readers separate and clear but I think I’ve repeatedly made my position crystal clear.
“Not sure how GB came up with the term Oligarchy to define the GOP Establishment. I guess he means the people who actually run for office; the people who work to get others elected; and the people who provide the funds for campaigns. New definition of Oligarchy; or elite for that matter. To be acceptable in the eyes of certain RINOS (I use the term with forethought) you must be none of those.” Oldflyer
I suggested ‘oligarchy’ as a much more accurate appellation for the GOPe than ‘establishment’ or the vague ‘elite’.
The GOP oligarchy is made up of those with the wealth, connections and political status who use those attributes for personal aggrandizement at the expense of the nation’s welfare.
An oligarchy seeks to maintain its status and is often generational in nature. Look to South America for the world’s premier historical examples of Oligarchies.
An oligarchy is what the GOPe seek with the pretense of lip service to conservative principles, in order to keep ‘the rubes’ quiescent.
Neo:
“To me it’s another indication of the triumph of emotion and demagoguery over reason.”
Emotion is a given and a necessary ingredient in the activist game to catalyze fundamental social change, paradigm shift. Denigrating and implicitly rejecting the utility of emotion is self-defeating.
The emotion that’s necessary to make a difference can be marshaled for a reasoned position. Activism is the power of the people available to anyone for any cause. In the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist, narrative is elective truth while the actual truth is just a narrative that must be competed for like any other in the arena.
Demagoguery is a form of narrative. Reason is a form of narrative. Same basic rules to win either in the context of the activist game. The general will of We The People is a function of activism.
Your formulation of “triumph of emotion and demagoguery over reason” is incorrect. The competition is between a demagogic narrative versus a reasoned narrative in which emotion is a resource that’s vital for any side in the narrative contest.
In the current situation, conservatives had 1st dibs and should have marshaled the emotion needed to compete, but they were critically handicapped by their shortfall of activist mindset and skillset. Trump-front alt-Right activists exploited the resulting market inefficiency to commandeer the emotion that, by rights, should have served conservatives in this presidential election cycle.
Emotion is not exclusive to demagoguery. It’s not your enemy. Your enemy is the self-defeating rejection of activism that gifted to the alt-Right the emotion they and you needed to compete for real.
Ann:
“Thanks for the link to that Commentary article on Trump’s foreign policy speech, Eric. The man is a fool, and makes Hillary look like a genius and stalwart leader by comparison.”
Yes and no regarding “the man is a fool”.
Yes from a 20th-21st century American-centric leader of the free world perspective, by which his speech contains contradictions between fundamental points.
No from the perspective that the contradictions iron out if America switches to a radically redefined role that abides by the Russian-preferred world order. In particular, Trump’s conflation of Bush and Obama’s foreign affairs, especially related to the Iraq intervention, is conspicuous for its consistency with Russian propaganda.
Such a fundamental change by a President Trump is within reach because President Obama has laid the course and the groundwork for it.
Geoffrey Britain:
I was not saying that YOU hold those positions. I was speaking generally about the “burn it down” “destroy the GOPe” movement.
I also realize you’re not a Trump supporter, and have said so in the past, I believe.
“It is absolutely necessary to focus on the GOP instead of the Democrats because we can do nothing to stop them if our political leaders are collaborating with the democrats and… they are” – G Britain
And yet, we still don’t get to the core of the problem, as the focus is still wrong.
Ultimately, in a democratic system, even as flawed as ours, it is a reflection of the choices “We The People” made/make.
So it ultimately comes right back into our own mirrors, if we want to see someone to blame.
We all left it to others to take care of “the politics”, for a large variety of reasons. Is it any wonder that it ends up like this?
@Neo – Since about mid-January, I’ve started seeing more “conservative” articles “explaining” Trump’s rise, with lots of talk about/blame for the “establishment” or “DC elites”, etc and I find that most of it looks like posturing, to make themselves look like they are on the same side as the angry Trump supporters.
It is like they don’t want to lose that segment of their audience. IOW, they were/are afraid to make a stand for the principles that they were espousing.
@Eric – where you are right is the fact that people have not been sufficiently involved in making the case, in expanding the appeal, in vetting and supporting the right candidates, and in holding elected ones accountable.
Maybe on emotion we are on the same page, maybe not.
I look at emotion like an advertiser would. It is necessary to get the “buy in”, but all the other attributes of the product have to also “make sense” to the potential buyer. Ultimately, a message has to answer “what’s in it for me?”.
I think the entire GOP / conservative movement’s messaging strategy has been weak. Emotion is only one aspect that has been weak, in some key respects, and way over done in other respects (of which we are seeing the results).
@blert – “So her decision was really made for her by the flow of competition and events…. And that’s how many decisions are made, aren’t they?”
Right you are.
People make some of these arguments like they assume we all live in a box with no moving parts. Change A and the result will “obviously” be B.
Like the proposal to raise tariffs to punish the “cheating Chinese” so we can recapture all those “lost jobs”.
None of these people are accounting for all the effects, but are narrowly focusing on only one effect.
The reality would be that they’d likely end up poorer (with the higher cost of goods to live), probably still not get the job they “lost” (because the demand would be insufficient for those products, being limited to the domestic market from retaliatory tariffs and quotas), and with less government handouts available (as the higher costs hit companies too, and their markets are restricted to domestic only, resulting in less profit, and fewer jobs = less tax revenue).
Funny that you should post this on the same day that we hear about Boehner – definitely someone that the rank and file would consider “establishment” – accused Cruz of being “Lucifer in the flesh”, and said that he was supporting Trump.
But as to the article at hand, iirc Gingrich was the one that attacked Romney in 2012 for having learned to speak French (Romney served an LDS mission in France), while neglecting to mention that Gingrich himself had his own long association with the language. The man did good things when he was in Congress. But it’s become clear that he’ll say or do anything that he thinks will get him back to power.
So I’m “alt-right”. Who knew.
Which is a bad thing, right (being alt-right I mean, not not knowing).
…still a Cruz supporter. Although at this point I recognize it’s rather pointless (which has never stopped me from chasing after political chimera before).
…still willing to vote Trump in the general.
…still think Hillary has committed actual criminal acts (though unsure she will be indicted).
…still looking toward a Whig Moment for the GOP (which, I suppose, contextually defines me as “alt-right”, right(?)).
…still not a purported Marxist or leftist or Maoist or Stalinist (even though, see “Whig Moment” …and, well, unless we’re making the definition of such to be so broad as to be symbolically ludicrous and functionally pointless).
…still a conservative fundamentalist (the latter being somewhat a play on words of my religious beliefs).
The point of all of which is to say: sometimes labels are rather pointlessly tiring.
For all the damnation heaped on so-called establishment Republicans, not a one of them – not – a – single- congressman, not – a – single – senator – none of them, NOT ONE OF THEM voted for Obamacare. They were outnumbered and out voted. Short of impeachment for which they didn’t have the votes, or a strike, or a coup d’etat what were they to do?
Their crime according to the alt-right was somehow, someway not stopping the impossible to stop. So now they will have us believe that a huckster con artist with a wig and makeup, an ignoramus with a following of like minds, will work miracles and undue the damage? Like spoiled unruly children they are throwing a tantrum. There were many alternatives available – a brilliant businesswoman, a rock ribbed tough as nails governor, an over the top intelligent debater with the highest integrity, a young up from immigrant roots quick learner good looking senator, but NO, none of these were good enough. Only a loud mouthed, crude, clown of a man, a crony capitalist of the first order, an egotist with a constant chip on his shoulder could fill their need for vengeance.
I will have no part of it. If the country is to fall into ruin, if capitalism is to perish, if The Enlightenment is to vanish, if the motto is to be From Each According To His Ability, To Each According To His Need then let the chaos and suffering that follows be placed on the shoulders of the evil cunt who personifies it. I will not vote to further tarnish what remains of the Republican Party, the party brought to life to ensure freedom, by helping to install a fall guy and patsy.
He’s there for one reason only, to take the blame for the upcoming catastrophe that the left created. Let them own it.
brdavis9:
What makes you think anyone called you “alt-right”?
I wrote a piece defining the term. It is NOT synonymous with “Trump-supporter” or even “people who use the term ‘establishment.'” In the present post, I wrote that “It’s all another example of how leftist activist techniques are used by the alt-right (some of whom are actual leftists), as well as by talk show hosts and by other pundits, to stir up the ‘masses’ (another leftist word) against the GOP.”
In other words: these terms are used by the alt-right. They are also used by talk show hosts and other pundits. And they are also used by a lot of other people, some of whom support Trump and some of whom do not.
“It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.”—Karl Popper
The Other Chuck,
I find that to be a cogent argument. And the only reason I can see for not voting for a nominated Trump. If someone believes that the country is going to fall anyway, then letting the facts show that the Left owns responsibility for it will be critical after the dust clears.
That said, when Obamacare passed, the Republicans were in a minority and because not one republican voted for it, the Democrats own it. However, I suspect that many republicans voted against it because too many of their big donors were happy with the current system. Rather than a vote on principle, it was a vote to maintain the status quo. And the support for that assertion is their behavior since they gained the majority.
Nor can I agree that Trump’s popularity is simply due to an ignorant electorate. Rather, people are fed up and view nuanced, carefully crafted wording that can be defended against politically correct attacks… as evasion, as just more lip service to get elected. What they want is for someone to ‘tell it like it is’ without equivocation because they rightly sense that someone who gives even an inch to political correctness has already lost the fight for America’s survival.
Geoffrey Britain:
What could those who voted against Obamacare have done to have convinced you of their sincerity in not wanting Obamacare to pass because of principle? I wrote about the passage of Obamacare on pretty much a daily basis for months when it was going on, and I’m convinced the vast majority were very much against it and did their best.
The House also kept repealing it later on, and finally the Senate did, too, using reconciliation, which was fitting since it was the process by which it was passed in the first place. Most people are not even aware of that fact (I’m not necessarily including you, but I keep hearing people saying they’re angry at the GOP Congress for not repealing it). What else could they have done? Were you aware that they had repealed it?
I keep reading over and over that they never repealed it; this is untrue, although of course they couldn’t get it past Obama’s veto.
The other day I heard a clip of a caller to Rush Limbaugh. Here it is:
Rush Limbaugh ought to know his political history, right? Did he correct his guy? Nope, he let it stand. Why? Is he ignorant himself of what actually happened? Or does he actually want to foster ignorance because anger at the GOP is good for business, or for some other reason? Take your pick.
There are actually TWO errors there, and they are big ones. The first is that the GOP in Congress never repealed Obamacare. They did, as I’ve just proven. The second is that business of “taking our only weapon off the table.” That is a distortion of what was actually said, as I wrote here.
These memes take off, and they become “truth” that “everybody knows.” So yes, ignorance and propaganda is a very big part of the reason we’re at this impasse today.
Geoffrey Britain:
One more thing. You write, as an explanation for the attraction to Trump: ” What [the American people] want is for someone to ‘tell it like it is’ without equivocation because they rightly sense that someone who gives even an inch to political correctness has already lost the fight for America’s survival.”
But Trump has most definitely given a great deal more than an inch to political correctness (just one example is his reaction to Pam Geller, or this). As far as “equivocation” goes, Trump has equivocated and walked back at least half of the things he’s said.
People imagine that he’s not PC because he’s often not PC. People imagine he doesn’t equivocate because he seems to speak in a blunt and confident manner. But a significant amount of it is smoke and mirrors
GB,
I made that same argument weeks ago. It seems obvious to me that trump is a disaster as he has no clue about the real issues, issues you often bring up. As noted previously, if the burn down (the idiot, nihilistic alt-right support) occurs, isn’t better if it happens with a dem in office? We have been here before, and I am sure you know or quickly can find the historical examples.
Trump is a disaster seeking an iceberg. Hrc is a pantsuit tsunami who has little skill in surfing the YUGE wave.
GB,
I often agree with you, but our hostess at 12:26 hammers down the nail that sticks up.
neo,
Consistent behavior, both before and especially after Obamacare’s passage would have convinced me that Republican’s vote against its passage was a vote in principle. Of course some votes where but only wishful thinking imagines that leopards change their spots. It’s possible that McConnell and Boehner marshalled uniminity among Republicans out of civic duty but when their behavior before and since is considered, it’s much more probable that the determinitive factor was their donor’s expressing their desire to stay with the status quo. Their actions regarding illegal immigration are a conclusive demonstration, that the fulfillment of their donor’s wishes are foremost among their considerations. BTW, I never suggested that congressional republicans did not sincerely try to repeal Obamacare. I only suggested that the majority’s rationale for doing so was for self-serving reasons.
Nor have I suggested that Trump will give his supporters what they desire, only that it’s possible that he’s sincere on his major issues. While acknowledging that the truth may be otherwise. What I posited was the demeanor that many voter’s want to see. I didn’t say that Trump demonstrates it in a logically persuasive manner.
parker,
I agree that Trump cannot articulate how he will accomplish his promises. However, Reagan demonstrated that success starts with the right attitude. “Whether you think you can or think you can’t… you’re right” Henry Ford
I’m ONLY suggesting that Trump, for all his faults, has that part right and while that is no guarantee of success, without it any success is due to good fortune. Even the incompetent sometimes get lucky.
Traffic came to a halt as a boisterous crowd walked in the roadway, some waving American and Mexican flags. Protesters smashed a window on at least one police cruiser, punctured the tires of a police sport utility vehicle, and at one point tried to flip a police car.
About five police cars were damaged in total, police said, adding that some will require thousands of dollars’ worth of repairs.
“Dump the Trump,” one sign read. Another protester scrawled anti-Trump messages on Costa Mesa police cars.
Protesters clash with cops at California Trump rally: Hundreds of Mexican flag-waving demonstrators smash up a squad car, punch a Donald supporter and scuffle with riot police amid angry scenes
Police clashed with protesters outside Donald Trump’s rally in Costa Mesa, California Thursday night
One group of protesters was filmed trying to flip over a police car outside the Pacific Amphitheater where he spoke
Hundreds of demonstrators flooded the streets, hurling rocks at motorists and forcefully declaring their opposition
One Trump supporter was seen bloodied after being punched in the face, while about 20 people were arrested
The Republican frontrunner was campaigning on Thursday ahead of the state’s June 7 presidential primary
He is vying for votes in the primary election to narrow the gap to the 1,237 delegates needed to win the nomination
Trump leads Kasich and Cruz in the California polls, with an estimated 45.7 per cent of voters, according to Real Clear Politics
And lastly, i was wondering when the elites would foment a rape charge or false stuff on trump.. as they have done over and over against enemies ranging from court appointments to soccer teams, to football, to college frats, to random students professors, etc… famous others and so on… [rape: it isnt just a crime, its a political tool – a new feminist t-shirt? beter than boys are stupid throw rocks at them]
Clinton was with Jeff and people know about that scandal, so now there is a new person in which the information is turning out to be what? oh yeah, another person in a long line of hoaxes from tawana brawely onwards…
Trump lawyer calls ‘rape’ lawsuit a HOAX and says there’s no proof accuser exists as he claims her address and phone number are fakes and ‘clearly there’s some kind of collusion going on’
AS usualy the brits can publish what US press uses abuses and refuses…
Donald Trump’s lawyer says there’s no indication that a lawsuit plaintiff who claimed Trump raped her when she was 13 is a real person
‘Based on our investigation, [there is] no evidence that the person who has made these allegations actually exists,’ attorney Alan Garten told DailyMail.com
Garten cites ‘false’ address and phone number and says whoever wrote the lawsuit ‘clearly has some legal background’
The billionaire had already ‘categorically’ denied the legal claims, made by a ‘Katie Johnson’ in a bombshell $100 million lawsuit
[edited for length by n-n]
pay attention to the headings for the videos and other images… the authors are titling them to also affect voter turn out by implication.
the mexicans smashing police cars and holding flags an beating people up, are labled Trump Protesters
one video is Donald Trump Protestors vandalize police car
many people will think that these protestors are donalds people NOT people who are agianst him
its getting real dirty as the establishment is getting their armies of morons, useful idiots, feminists, and such to win by other means.
Ah. Sorry neo. I didn’t recall that article (i.e., defining your meaning of the “alt-right”). It clarified matters a bit.
I’m still not sure that I couldn’t be – even if inadvertently – lumped in with a group I’m not sure I have much in common with, but …meh. I’ll at least try not to snivel about it going forward.
…my initial reaction was because I’m quite, quite unhappy with the GOPe – I will not pine after they become an historical footnote (I think it is inevitable) – and I do use terms and phrases like “elite”, “political aristocracy”, “crony-capitalists”, “the establishment”, &tc. to describe “those people” …and I’m [vocally] quite on-board with changing/transforming the GOP from within or without (and have been for around a dozen years or so, since some time in the early Bush presidency).
I admit I can at timed be quite a bit less effete in expressing my disdain (well: perhaps more accurately open hostility) for the, ahem, “elites” who use the party as personal fiefdom and financial sinecure …but still, you’ll forgive me for saying I have quite the desire to see the insouciant rapscallions beggared (at least), with perhaps an appropriately heated admixture of viscous coal-derived byproducts and the appropriated plumage of the current descendants of archeopteryx applied to their impeccably tailored habiliments and exposed epidermis, and then summarily transported from the immediate vicinity via, umm, perhaps a stout oaken rail slung between two hardy bearers would suit.
…but that’s just me.
I’m hardly leftist of course (been there, done that, the irrepressible typically naive youth with blinders on, young-skull-full-of-mush, salad days, ya-da ya-da), and so thought your description of those who frequently resort to use of those terms in a derisive manner in re: the GOPe was rather painting with an over-broad brush.
Before re-reading the article.
My bad, n’est-ce pas.
…btw the reference to “the man” brought back several fond memories of that “useful idiot” period: I’d quite forgotten that one. It’s been a long time.
brdavis9:
The problem with hating the “elites” and wanting to replace them is this: they will be replaced by new “elites.” Politics is politics. Politics is power. Do you really think that destroying the ones you are angry it will mean they will be replaced with something better? I do not, and the rise of Donald Trump as a protest to those “elites” is the sort of thing that is just more evidence of it.
I have always advocated a slow person-by-person process of primarying the ones we don’t like and trying to win elections, but not tearing the whole shebang down in the process. People say “that hasn’t worked,” but maybe the reason it hasn’t worked has nothing to do with those “elites.” It WAS working very slowly, and we had a good chance of actually getting the presidency this time, which would have given the right a lot more clout. But instead, Donald Trump.
It is this impulse that disturbs and worries me.
Geoffrey Britain:
The GOP’s behavior before the passage of Obamacare and after has been highly consistent on that topic. Highly.
Also, you didn’t answer my question: did you know they repealed it, and that Obama vetoed it?
The Ratcatcher reference in the context of your reply deserves a rather involved reply. Forgive in advance the length (the thread seems “tired” at this point anyways lol).
My brief and to-the-point summary rejoinder is “au contraire” LOL.
The complicated version follows and is tediously long.
—————
I don’t hate nor wish to destroy the elite “class”, neo.
Not at all.
(Though I can see why you might suspicion such lol. One cannot, after all, write in such a way as to not be misunderstood. Ha!)
To what benefit would wasting such expenditure of emotional capital possibly be worth the effort?
I do despise – and pity – the striving elite …different emotions entirely (or motivations, if you will) from those based on “hate”.
(“The striving elite” being a subset of the inhabitants of this network/socio-financial class/strata/whatever, and certainly not all who live within its immediate and adjacent environs.)
So …I’m not a nihilist than lol.
My …belief (observation?) …is …the “elite” are as surely caged by the circumstances of their wealth and power as the celled prisoner by the condition and terms of his incarceration.
Perhaps more so, as the repentant criminal may someday be released and/or reformed and thus leave his past by something so simple as an act of will …while the inhabitants of this strata may be so constrained by the circumstance of their birth and wealth and power as to be unable to escape the equally rigid bars of their gilded confinement.
There can never be the freedom found in anonymity for the wealthy and the powerful; they are and will always be ultimately constrained by their circumstances. Maybe they’re aware of it. Maybe not. It’s all the same to me.
Hence …to some degree, I pity them (well some of them) …whether they’re judged as “deserving” of it or not (by anyone).
Hmm. Let’s stipulate it thus: I am able to understand – and commiserate (a bit) with – their predicament. Stuff happens.
Even though …I would [happily] see [some of] them gone (more accurately: greatly diminished) from power …and in such a manner as to give pause to their [inevitable] antecedents.
Continue to bear with me here.
The plundering and outright destruction of the middle class[/es wealth] and influence during the past 40 years was/is not in the best long-term interests of the republic, let alone in the best interests of the monied/political classes (whether it was done a’purpose, or coincidentally matters not: outcomes matter here, not original intent).
And just in case my motivation is in question: I don’t mind (in the tiniest iota) that some people have more (even much, much more) than others. Sincerely: I’m not envious of those with wealth (or power per se). Why would I care? I’m …happy …positively brimming at times with joie de vivre. Blessed maybe. Life is good. No complaints. Etc., etc. lol.
At the very least …I’m not so bitter by any stretch as to measure my happiness by wishing others to be punished or diminished for their status and station in life.
(And I greatly admire those of any class willing to honorably achieve any honorable goal which means so much to them as to have devoted their life to achieving it. That can be magnificent. Good on ’em.)
Nor do I have a problem with disabused nobility or “old money” …so long as it is – here is that word again – honorable.
But I find deplorable a donor and political class …an aristocracy (if you will) …
…who “mine” for their personal financial “enhancements” through active deprivation of the less connected and the less politically active …
…who blithely (and subsequently) demonize the less fortunate …
…after forcibly making them “the less ‘fortunate'” (via legislative means and taxing authority and judicial complicity) …
…and blaming them for some ephemeral as-defined-by-the-elites insouciance in being unwilling (or morally incapable) to equally break the laws that their representatives should legislatively be actively protecting them with.
And who did so by suborning the intent and history of the nation and our founding principles.
This isn’t just.
It is manifestly unjust.
It is another guise of evil.
The rise of the crony-capitalist economic pathology (out of the ashes of the good-ol’-boy network) may be one of many probable developments of any capitalist economy (oh: and I am unabashedly pro-capitalism at this juncture in history btw …that may change – as I predict it will – with the rise of robotics and the development of AI and genetic technologies) …but it is nonetheless still a pathology and it is execrably deplorable.
That is also an entirely accurate description of the generally donor class practitioners of crony capitalism and their pet politicians (of both parties): execrable.
Greed and malfeasance to this degree at the expense of justice is in no one’s interest, be it individual or societal or cultural.
And especially not in the context of the American Experiment.
To analogize (in an already over-long reply) I commend to your reading a simple summary of the rise of the Roman republic, especially those sections beginning Patricians and Plebeians.
History repeating itself (in a sense), the American middle class finds itself in a similar situation, despite being the ultimate bulwark (and military force: the elite seldom send their sons and daughters to war in effective numbers) against the destruction of the wealth and power of the elites by the ever-recurring dark forces of a jealous and envious barbarism.
The elites are idiots to think and act otherwise. Why wouldn’t they recognize that? – Dunno. Beats me.
(But by which alone they prove themselves unfit to weild the power they possess; they don’t recognize that a strong, prospering middle class is necessary for their own well-being and survival.)
All said to reiterate: I don’t hate them …but I have substantive reasons for believing them unsuitable for the power they have misused in the pursuit of purely personal gain.
And I want them deposed, and am willing to entertain any tool, however otherwise flawed, that presents itself in the accomplishment of those aims.
I retain enough belief in the resilience of the practice and “idea” (if you will) of America and a faith in both common and elite Americans, to be reasonably confident that – like the Jewish song lyrics “We survived Pharaoh. We can survive this” – reforming (or replacing) the entrenched GOPe will be survivable despite any unexpected twists and turns.
Which does not make me any sort of a fatalist about the future. Quite the opposite.
Last. I don’t disagree with your assessment in any way that we were already on an orderly path to co-opt the GOP (via the rise of the Tea Party), and that Cruz would have been a more precise (better!) instrument. Not at all. I’d been cautiously optimistic about it for a while (too).
But you don’t go to war with the army you wished for. You go to war with the army you have.