A good description of how Rubio and Cruz (finally) teamed up to expose Trump as a fraudulent incoherent empty suit. And I find Christie’s and Huckabee’s endorsements of him despicable.
[Update a few minutes later]
Does anyone actually believe that Trump is being audited because he’s a “strong Christian”?
Even Trump’s sincere Christian supporters don’t believe that he’s a very sincere Christian, at least according to the very polls Trump prints out and sleeps on like a dragon atop a pile of gold. (Though, looked at from the right angle, it’s more like a guinea pig hoarding all the shredded-paper cage-lining.) In fact, only 5 percent of Republicans believe that Trump is “very religious,” while nearly half think he’s “not at all” religious or “not too religious.” I know he now says that “nobody reads the Bible more than me.” But, again, I can’t imagine anyone actually believes him. (I also would have thought this is the kind of lie truly God-fearing people would not utter, for fear of, you know, lightning bolts or salt-pillarification.)
Anyway, all of this public religiosity is fairly new. Before he ran for president, if you played the word-association game with 100,000 Americans, I’d venture that not one of them would have said “Christian!” when asked, “What first comes to mind when you think of Donald Trump?”
Apparently, according to Trump, that’s only true of normal Americans. The IRS is different. It’s like the eye of Sauron searching the land for “strong Christians.” When its cruel gaze landed upon the failed casino magnate, beauty-pageant impresario, thrice-married and confessed adulterer who’s talked about how his own daughter is so hot he’d date her if she wasn’t his daughter and bragged about how it doesn’t matter what critics say about you so long as “you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass,” and who told Howard Stern that his ability to avoid getting the clap while sleeping around was his “personal Vietnam,” the IRS immediately saw the truth of the matter.
Suddenly, the alarms at the IRS Christian persecution squad started flashing. Over the P.A. system came: “Code Red! We’ve got a ‘strong Christian’ in sector 7!”
If you don’t see that Trump is a con man, you’re the mark.
[Update a while later]
Ace explains why Trump is no Ronald Reagan (and I’d note that “Steve Goddard” on Twitter has lost his mind on this issue):
A big problem I have with Trump not knowing things, and clearly never have thought about things, combined with his obvious desire to pander and make the big sale, is that when he’s caught out without any good answer, and senses that he’s losing the room with an unpopular answer, he usually (75% of the time) tries to get back on the right side of popular opinion and embrace the liberal position on the issue.
You couldn’t do that to Reagan, because Reagan always had a series of facts to back him up, and because he’d been thinking about things — not feeling about them; thinking about them, theorizing about them — for years, like during his famous GE addresses.
Unlike Trump, he never felt that he was “losing the room” with an unpopular conservative answer. He was always confident and in command, because he had earned being confident and in command. He had done the homework — he wasn’t some Millennial who had feelz that xe was right. He was a thinking, intellectually-voracious man who tested his own thoughts until he knew he was right, because he’d looked at the question from several directions.
When Reagan felt he was addressing a hostile crowd, he didn’t immediately attempt to placate them by offering them a liberal position he flip-flopped to on the spot. Instead, he went into his mental note-card file and tried to convince them of the conservative opinion.
And a lot of the time, he did.
My problem with Trump is that he is a dealmaker trying to make a sale. Right now he’s trying to make a deal with conservatives — so this is the very most conservative we’ll ever see him.
If he gets the nomination, he now starts working on making the second part of the deal with the other party in the negotiations, the general public.
So this is the most conservative we’ll ever see Trump — this is the absolute most conservative he’ll ever be — and he’s not conservative at all, except, possibly, on immigration. He combines liberal policy impulses with frankly authoritarian or even fascist ones, which he thinks are “what conservatives want,” because, frankly, he conceives of us as ugly-minded, stupid dummies who get off on this shit.
That’s why he didn’t put the “Ban Muslims” line in a more palatable, persuasive form, like “Reduce immigration from Muslim-majority countries or countries with a terrorism problem to a level where we can vet each individual applicant.”
No, he put it in the most bigoted, ugly way he could think of, because that’s about his level, and because, also, that’s what he thinks “conservatives” are.
Yup. It’s ironic that his supporters think he “tells it like it is,” when he really tells it like he thinks his audience du jour wants to hear it.
For example, his ballyhooed crackdown on illegal immigration is, in reality, an amnesty plan that conveniently goes unmentioned in the position paper touted by his campaign. The real plan — as implausible for law enforcement and gratuitously burdensome for aliens as it is Iraq-like expensive for taxpayers — is to hunt down and deport 12 million people, only to . . . yes . . . bring them back into the country legally – i.e., with amnesty.
Just… really weak. “Don’t believe what he says, look at what goes unmentioned in his position paper. If you’re in favor of amnesty, Trump is your guy.” The smell of desperation is palpable.
That laid the foundation for the night’s most salient point: the need for Republicans to draw a sharp contrast with Hillary Clinton.
Because the people who have so-far actually voted for Trump, come November, will be confused (by a lack of contrast) when the choice is between Trump and Hillary.
It is really hard not to laugh out loud at that.
Because the people who have so-far actually voted for Trump, come November, will be confused (by a lack of contrast) when the choice is between Trump and Hillary.
You’re missing the point. The Republicans have to make the contrast for the people who didn’t vote for Trump, and who (like me) aren’t particularly thrilled to do so.
Fair enough. So it becomes a math problem. Which group is bigger:
1) People who wouldn’t vote but will for Trump.
2) People who usually do vote, but dislike Trump so much that it overcomes their distrust of Hillary AND will actually result in a vote for her.
And geography comes into play. For folks living in places like California or Texas it really doesn’t matter.
For the record, I’m not sure of a good word that could describe my mental state at the time of filling in the circle next to “Donald Trump”, but “thrilled” wouldn’t be in the list.
You forgot the third group — people who would have happily voted against Hillary, if only that didn’t also mean voting for a child/narcissist who is indistinguishable from Hillary in his likely post-election policies, and so instead vote Libertarian or just stay home in disgust. If enough potential Republicans fail to vote Republican, Hillary will win even if none of them actually votes for her.
Another good G-File, thanks for linking Rand. Here’s the non-ad version. Some very good self-reflection in there. Alas, [sigh], some off-the-rails stuff:
I’m also open to the idea that I’m worried about my livelihood. It’s certainly true that a Trump nomination, never mind a Trump presidency, would create real problems for me, given what I think about the man. But I’d rather keep my principles and lose my mid-rung career as a TV pundit or sell fewer books than thrive by saying things I don’t believe.
Jonah, please drop that crap. The air-waves and bookshelves are always overflowing with content delivered by individuals who for whatever reason find the current President objectionable. The idea that a President Trump would be detrimental to the market demand for your opinion is silly.
For those who increasingly are finding themselves NR’d-out (like me), here’s Mark Steyn. He (for one) is bemoaning something that has a little more gravity; the likelihood the election is going to feature no good choice for first amendment believers.
Also, though I think Peggy Noonan shot her wad long ago, she sometimes does a good stopped-clock imitation.
The current president hasn’t threatened to change the First Amendment to allow him to sue people who “lie” (that is, show video of him) about him.
Rubio’s standup routine is great. Really funny if not exactly accurate in his claims.
Rubio has to confront the frontrunner somehow if he wants to win a state. I guess they figured the window is short enough now that they can weather Trump’s attention.
Its also funny how people say Trump is lying about everything except a couple things.
Your remark about “window is short enough” to “weather Trump’s attention” reminded me of, dunno, a Star Trek TOS script . . .
RUBIO: (to aide) We keep pouring it on.
AIDE: Senator, I still don’t know what we’re doing.
RUBIO: We’re gaining in the polls, the Cruz campaign isn’t. Maybe that “thing” will see us and let Cruz go. If I only had some zingers.
AIDE: Zingers? You’ve got ’em. I have one page of them written.
RUBIO: You’ve just earned your pay for the week. Stand by. I’ll deliver those zingers.
(“The gaping open mouth” has been distracted from Cruz and turns towards Rubio)
RUBIO: It worked. Great. I think it’s great. Get us out of here!
The MSM needs to be liquidated.
That said, the main benefit of Trump is not him being elected to president but that it accomplishes two things:
1: He has smashed the Overton Window. Note that The Cathedral (Academia/Media/Civil Service) fears Trump for smashing the Overton Window more than fearing him being President.
2: The legitimacy of USG authority is based on “Popular Sovereignty” since the Progressive Era. Looking at the electoral trends, it is increasingly unlikely that Trump will be defeated fair and square by voting in the primary or even the general election. This forces The Cathedral to attempt action that would de-legitimize the democratic process, thus ensuring that the White population being targeted for destruction will have to resort to anti- democratic means to protect itself (ex. Secession, Revolution, Military Coup, etc).
What sort of actions am I referring to?
Example, stopping Trump in the Primary by simply declaring his Primary win null and void. Then directly appointing someone like Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee.
Another example, Trump wins the presidency and the Federal bureaucracy ignores him and continues to operate as if Trump was never elected. Thus killing the myth that the Government and the People are the same. Let’s just say, it’ll get harder (big understatement) for Leftists to claim that the government is what the people does.
PS: Why is my first comment in moderation? I posted no links.
“thus ensuring that the White population being targeted for destruction ”
Well! That was revealing. But maybe not revealing enough. Please share more of your theories!
Noel Ignatiev (of Harvard) advocated such destruction. So did Tim Wise and Jesse Benn. I think Asians like me are next, but I suspect that the anti-whites will run into a big problem… Vladimir Putin, and maybe even the repercussions of a Trump election.
I hope you’re not part of the anti-white party, are you?
Here’s a visual description of what the anti-whites want:
http://youtu.be/kpWwjtU9uTE
It is possible to be racist against white people. Heck, the entire social justice movement is a racist pogrom against white people.
Wodun said: “It is possible to be racist against white people. Heck, the entire social justice movement is a racist pogrom against white people.”
I agree. It certainly looks that way to me.
It’s like a religious cult, or something…
Anyone who needs a detailed explanation of why and how Trump is no Reagan is the very definition of low information voter. The problem, as has been demonstrated twice in the last eight years, is we find ourselves at a point where they’re the ones who decide elections.
That’s why he didn’t put the “Ban Muslims” line in a more palatable, persuasive form, like “Reduce immigration from Muslim-majority countries or countries with a terrorism problem to a level where we can vet each individual applicant.”
No, he put it in a much simpler form, using the phrase “until we can figure out what the hell is going on”. A form much more digestible to low information voters. Or for Trump true-believers, a form for people who believe their lying eyes.
Trump puts it in the form that will generate the most controversy. His plan, which he outlined to associates a year before he announces, was to run a campaign that required to funding from voters or by himself. He believes the media will self fund his entire campaign. All he needs to do is spout controversial statements ever couple days. Which he as did with his opening salvo of mexican illegals are all criminals and rapists but there might be a few good ones.
follow that up with shots at women, shots at muslims, shots at …
The last big one was about Bush and 9-11. When he gets invited to news shows to give him a chance to walk back a statement he generally, doubles down creating even more controversy and more free publicity.
Errmmm… Mexican illegals are, in fact, all criminals. The clue to this fact is in the phrase “illegal immigrant”.
You are reminding me of that SNL sketch where RR is an evil genius in private and fool in public. Which is it?
My impression of Trump is a lot closer to Nixon than Reagan. And that leads to one of my fears of the man, that he’ll find himself in a scandal and the Republican party takes it in the shorts.
But come November I may have to weigh that against the certain doom if a democrat wins.
I’m not a Trump voter, but I do admit to enjoying the hell out of seeing the party establishment wrecked.
It’s really simple; the party establishment committed an act that was both massively corrupt and the height of arrogance. They did this regarding immigration, and worse, kept doing it. The party voters were against it, but the party elite kept bringing it up, wouldn’t let it drop.
Going further, the party elite tried to rig the primary for Jeb Bush, and now they’ve got their chips on Rubio, the empty suit gang of 8 slimebag they’re now trying to impose on us. .
Republican voters are angry, very angry, and I totally support them in that, I’m angry too. This, and this alone, is what’s created Trump.
Where I disagree with my fellow angry burn-down-the-establishment types is that I don’t see Trump as the answer (I have a lot of qualms about him).
Personally, I favor Ted Cruz. He’s as hated by the establishment as Trump is, and with good reason. His record isn’t perfect, but there’s no such thing as a perfect candidate. I will, however, vote for any non-establishment Republican nominee in November. Trump included.
“Personally, I favor Ted Cruz. He’s as hated by the establishment as Trump is, and with good reason.”
Cruz FINALLY got around to mentioning that in the last debate, though he didn’t hammer it home. It’s about time. he should have been talking about that right from the start. Turn what some people think is a liability (being despised by the GOPe) into an asset.
Totally agreed, Gregg.
I’ve long had some qualms with some of Cruz’s messaging. I’m delighted that he fired his communications director, because some of the things done were just flat out stupid. The photoshop of Obama and Rubio shaking hands was in this category; there are plenty of easy to find public domain photos of them doing that, so why use a bad photoshop? I just hope this firing was in time.
I support Cruz, but I’m trying to set that aside in order to have a more accurate guesstimate of the shape of the race (in other words, not let my hopes cloud my predictions). The way I see it at the moment is that Cruz needs to win Texas, or it’s over for him – especially if he wins zero states Super Tuesday. Actually, I’d say it’s effectively over for any candidate (Trump included) winning zero states Super Tuesday – with the possible exception of Kasich, who seams to be staking all his hopes on Ohio and Michigan rather than competing on Super Tuesday (though frankly, I don’t see his path to the nomination with that strategy, though IMHO it’s a viable one if he wants to be VP).
Pack up the babies and grab the old ladies, it’s Brother Ted’s Travelling Salvation Show. I heard something that the Senator is channeling a tent preacher in his “stump speech.” Is this what we want?
Our community at Rand’s fine site includes a diversity of belief or for some, choosing not to believe. It is who we are individually speaking. And if who the Senator is, is a person who speaks openly about his personal beliefs in the public space, I am OK with that.
There were a lot of us looking at George W Bush public professions as trying to be a “holier than thou”, but over time, I came to accept the sincerity of his personal religious conversion, especially after his approval ratings tanked in his second term and his accepting that as the fruits of the policies he chose to pursue, and bear this without bitterness or recrimination. I can elaborate on this if anyone asks, because many here have bitter feelings towards him.
But is this Ted Cruz preacher persona for real, or is it pandering. Like a video of Hillary Clinton being embraced by Cory Booker and then Senator Booker seguing into the black-gospel counterpart of what Senator Cruz is channeling?
People that have known Cruz for a long time say that the religion is all new to them. He never talked about it, made a show about it or even acknowledged it.
Princeton, Harvard Law, Bush administration, wife at Goldman Sachs. Yeah, a man can’t get much more anti-establishment than Cruz.
Why do you discount his action as Senator which speak to anti-establishment?
No way a person could be part of the herd and then rebel?
Never happens?
Ted Cruz is hated by the GOP establishment, but he is ineffective.
Trump strikes me as a sort of Teddy Roosevelt. Loud, unpredictable, given to odd enthusiasms, but basically a ‘doer’. The only promise Trump has made that I expect him to accomplish as president is build that wall. Why? because he likes building things, and he’d like to see a Trump Wall somewhere. Plus, he knows how to get things built. He might also try to limit immigration, but that’s not nearly as likely. Still he seems to like America and like being an American, which is more than I can say about any of the Dem candidates.
Donald is just delicious as a candidate. The Dems are disgusting, and the Repubs, well, who really likes them? Even most Republicans don’t really like the party. Lots of people just want to stick it to the man, and DT is the guy to do that.
Yeah, TR was a New Yorker with bluster and “full of himself” by some accounts.
The impression I have regarding TR, however, was of a man from a genteel background “where a deal was a deal” and his word was a solemn commitment. With DT, you get “The Art of the Deal” as in Glenn Reynolds link to http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/tama-starr-ugly-art-trump-deals-article-1.2422470
As with Mark Twain’s famous quip “Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel”, maybe it should be “Never pick a fight with a woman who puts up all the outdoor signs”?
“Lots of people just want to stick it to the man, and DT is the guy to do that.”
But in fact…he’s not…….
Anyone who thinks Trump is somehow going to shake things up in Washington is deluding themselves. Trump *is* crony capitalism, a massager of politicians.
DT is the guy to do that.
Only the people can change DC. Trump will get people to support changes (good or bad.)
This will be a shakeup. Things are so bad it’s like lying on your back… all you can do is look up.
No one thinks Trump was audited for being Christian, not even Trump. However in all of the followups after that answer, he doesn’t claim he was but rather that other Christians were. The entire thing was scripted. Calling him a liar over it misses the true intention behind why he said it, which is also probably false.
I don’t think Christians are being audited just for being Christian.
But when Carson said he got audited after criticizing Obama, I believe that. Would Trump use the government this way? He has made some statements that support that view but it depends on figuring out what is bluster and lies from what isn’t.
“And I find Christie’s and Huckabee’s endorsements of him despicable.”
I assume Christie’s endorsement was out of self interest in some fashion.
It’s Huckabee’s endorsement that is harder to fathom. Trump and Huckabee live in two different universes. I can’t see how a guy like Huckabee would want Trump as the nominee.
Of course, that’s based on Huckabee being the sort of man he has been portraying. Perhaps he’s not….
–It’s Huckabee’s endorsement that is harder to fathom. Trump and Huckabee live in two different universes. I can’t see how a guy like Huckabee would want Trump as the nominee.
Of course, that’s based on Huckabee being the sort of man he has been portraying. Perhaps he’s not….–
Probably not. But maybe it’s just because he felt he had to choose one of them, and Trump seemed like best choice.
I would guess that Huckabee is not a big believer of the religion of conservatism. Maybe if you have a Christian religion, you don’t feel a great need of another religion.
I have a friend of a friend who was on Huckabee’s staff. I was privy to a message where he talked about how Trump and Huckabee were yukking it up together in Iowa behind the scenes. Apparently, they struck up an oddball kind of friendship, where they just enjoyed each other’s company. Go figure. Sometimes that happens – you meet someone, and things just click.
What kind of man is that? A follower of a jewish rabbi? The man who selflessly works at the homeless shelter? Working at a soup kitchen? Or living in the lap of luxury? What kind of preacher do you think he is?
According to Real Clear Politics, Mike Huckabee hasn’t endorsed Trump. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Huckabee’s daughter, is working for the Trump campaign, so maybe that’s the source of the error.
He didn’t endorse Trump, but he did congratulate Christie for doing so.
Would I be overstating to say that the likes of Trump (flaky) and Hillary (unethical) would never get near to leading other western nations, maybe with the exception of countries like Greece whose people are prepared to vote radical because they’ve become convinced that what they have now isn’t working?
What do you mean by “Western Nations”?
Eastern European nations are ruled by very Trumpian nationalists (Victor Orban on the right and Milos Zeman on the left).
Andrew, I really don’t understand your comment. On this blog, people make all sorts of claims about Hillary Clinton, so I don’t know how unethical you think she is, but because it is this blog, I really don’t care – your views won’t be as interesting as Rand’s when it comes to beliefs about the transgressions of the Clintons.
But I am interested in what you think about other countries. You are from NZ, right? Is NZ somehow immune from electing unethical leaders? If so, by what mechanism? Why is it that when I think of John Key, Kim Dotcom comes to mind? Do you think the following section should be smaller?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#Controversies
How about Australia? Generally, supporters of Abbott thought Gillard was unethical, and vice versa. What did you think of them?
Obviously accusations of unethical actions occur in all countries, and you’re right in that I don’t know US politics like You and Rand, maybe Rand’s wrong and Hillary is no worse than average.
As far as Key is concerned, none of the accusations against him come close to those I’ve seen against Hillary, that wiki page does seem to have be spun and doesn’t reflect the perception of Key most Kiwi’s have, though no doubt some on the extreme left believe every error or misstep he makes should see him removed.
“Why is it that when I think of John Key, Kim Dotcom comes to mind?”
I’ve no idea, I doubt they’ve spoken for a long time. At one time Dotcom was making various accusations against Key, he dropped them pretty quickly when it was uncovered that he’d been feed misleading information. Dotcom ended up pretty embarrassed by the whole fiasco.
Trump I think is in a league of his own as far as attacking his countrymen who are not his electoral demographic, I know of no western leaders who don’t recognize that it’s their job to at least try to appear to represent the vast majority of their people, with Trump it’s like, if you’re not a WASP expect to be his target. In other countries he’d be seen as the National Front type lunatic fringe.
The American political system is different to the political systems in other democracies, at least in terms of the selection of the final candidates for national leadership, to get into office in most countries the structure tends to be biased towards the select of more centrist leaders, those that select them for office, people experienced in politics either as politicians or as top party members, have an awareness of the importance of candidates having broad appeal. With the US party primaries system the final contenders can end up as those that make an impact within their own party by targeting the followers (not just the leaders) of other parties. A New Zealand Trump would not get near near leading a major party, ditto for most western countries.
Andrew, first, I apologize for my cranky tone – I’m going to blame it on low blood sugar.
I think the US system does indeed select for centrist leaders. While Trump (and Barry Goldwater before him) are aberrations, the Republicans historically have selected centrist leaders, which is why you hear so much carping on this blog the GOP establishment. When the Democrats have managed to win in recent history, it is with centrist leaders: Carter, Bill Clinton, Obama, all three of whom displeased the left for being too centrist. Hillary is similarly centrist, which is why the left is once again displeased.
I think Hillary cleared away her substantial competition in the Democratic party in a manner similar to how British style parties select their leader. It might be instructive to compare Hillary’s success so far to what happened recently in the Liberal party of Canada -first they selected Michael Ignatief as their leader, even though, like Hillary, he has a clunky way of expressing himself and whose ideology, like Hillary’s, was slightly to the right of bulk of the party, and who, like Hillary, was party royalty, and then they selected Justin Trudeau, party royalty who, like Hillary, had a family connection to a successful leader of their party.
Andrew, also see this:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/2016-elections-jeb-bush-dynasties-213682
I think it could have happened anywhere.
It is possible that American leaders are uniquely ethically-challenged in the Western world. It is also possible that other Western nations’ elites are better at covering their tracks, and calling their national media to heel.
But, national scandal and reckless leadership are hardly unique to the US. Off the top of my head, the Profumo affiar in Britain and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy immediately come to mind. There have been others.
On the whole, the US has done pretty well vis a vis the rest of the Western world. We must be doing something right.
Bob-1, Trump is a centrist.
I never really liked the term WASP. It is usually applied to people who only meet one or two of the criteria and usually just the W part.
Trump will go after anyone and skin color isn’t what determines who he will or wont attack.
Maybe that other countries don’t want orderly immigration like Trump is advocating and NZ has, is a problem with them and not the other way around?
Flawed politicians are common throughout the world.
Republican voters are angry, very angry, and I totally support them in that, I’m angry too. This, and this alone, is what’s created Trump.
Yes. But there is another point people are missing. We all know Trump is not an ideologue. Nobody would accuse him of being pure anything, especially not a great communicator. But if you pay attention his message (if not his solutions) come through. America used to believe in winning. We desperately need that attitude back so we do not tolerate the losing attitude of Obama or Hillary.
I’m back!
I’m very glad you are back!
Welcome back Ken. You were missed
WB Ken Anthony.
Thanks guys.
Stray thought… Trump wins TX. Everyone but Carson drops out. Ben gets a shw on Fox.
I am approaching the Acceptance phase of mourning.
I listened to Roger Stone on infowars, saying that Trump is the best candidate. I like Trump, or Carson best personally. My concern is he the best? Cruz is my general candidate.
he put it in the most bigoted, ugly way he could think of,
So sayith the PC police. When everyone else was ready to just welcome ‘refuges’ Trump says he noticed many were single men. Turns of some were terrorists mixed into the crowd.
Trump never says all are bad… just have some common sense, even if worded badly. Trump is no conservative. Congress will have to hold his feet to the fire.
But it’s about time we stopped letting conflict of interest drive our foreign policy. We hire (essentially) moles to negotiate deals with their own countrymen against our interests? (Which happens, for example, at every American base overseas.) My mother was hated by many Greeks because as housing officer she stopped many of the deals her corrupt Greek boss conducted daily with the nationals.
Which is only a small example of the larger problem only Trump is addressing. Targeted tariffs aren’t the conservative route, but for a dealmaker it makes sense. He will accidentally do better than others, left or right.
Cruz, who I like, is a liar. Rubio is a lightweight. This is why the accusations work.
Cruz might expose the true colors of congress, but nothing will get done until another Obama or Hillary comes along to make it worse again. With Trump, the fight will be about conservative values. That’s the fight we’ve NEVER had inside govt. Then we can ignore the left.
DT is no RR. Watch who he picks for VP.
“Does anybody think Donald Trump is a racist? I don’t. I mean, I really don’t. I don’t know of anything in his life that indicates that this man has racist tendencies.” — Mike Huckabee
Way back in the 1970s Trump was sued for racial discrimination in housing: undercover black housing applicants were told no rental units were available in his buildings, while undercover white applicants were offered a selection. In the 1980s he called for the death penalty for black teenagers accused of raping the Central Park jogger; when it turned out they were innocent, Trump protested the settlement they won from the city. Trump rose to national political prominence by accusing the first black president of concocting an elaborate conspiracy to cover up his foreign birth.
Today Trump is the favorite candidate of racists from David Duke to the American Freedom Party. He retweets white supremacists’ praise and bogus statistics (e.g. that blacks are responsible for most murders of whites), and his poll numbers even correlate geographically with Google searches for the n word. Is it possible that white supremacists have detected something that has escaped Mike Huckabee’s powers of observation?
So when black and Hispanic supremacists support Democrats, it means Democrats are racist? Democrats enacting supremacist policies makes them racist and the fact they run supremacist groups. Obama himself went to a racist church and has said many racist remarks.
If we were to tally things up between Trump and Obama or Trump and Democrat party, Trump wouldn’t come out being the racist one.
Trump can’t do anything about white supremacists or others who have expressed support like Louis Farrakhan.
The interesting thing is that these white supremacists sound exactly the same as other groups created by Democrats, especially SJW progressives. The only difference is that they view things through a different color lens.
Thanks Jim, you guys are doing an awesome job. 200 years of using race as a weapon wasn’t enough for Democrats. They choose to perpetuate it into the future. Way to go, oat yourself on the back.
Trump can’t do anything about white supremacists
Of course he can. He isn’t exactly shy about letting the world know who he doesn’t like (see: Rosie O’Donnell, Megyn Kelly, Jeff Bezos, etc.), or calling people names. If Trump considers someone an enemy, the whole world knows it. With David Duke and the Klan he pretended to not even know who they were, and then trotted out a lame excuse about an earpiece.
Yes, and Obama went to a racist black church. Get over it.
What’s that Jim? No reply?
You got me: I don’t think Obama’s church is remotely comparable to David Duke or the Klan. Do you?
Yes, we do, at least in its racist attitude.
“Attitude” has got to be the least interesting or important thing about white supremacy. Feel free to be offended by the “attitude” of views expressed in Obama’s church, but to compare Wright’s sermons to centuries of enslavement, terrorism and plunder: that’s not even wrong.
What did David Duke actually do that’s worse than Jeremiah Wright?
Duke has worked for decades to revive white supremacist organizations — groups responsible for thousands of murders and the suppression of millions of citizens’ rights — as a political force in the U.S.
Wright, from what I can tell, has agitated on behalf of the black Americans (and others) who’ve been the victims of the organizations that Duke promotes. To see those things as comparable requires astonishing myopia.
Duke has worked for decades to revive white supremacist organizations — groups responsible for thousands of murders and the suppression of millions of citizens’ rights — as a political force in the U.S.
Partly by getting them to renounce violence. I don’t recall him ever giving a speech in which he said “God damn America!”
Partly by getting them to renounce violence.
Are you serious? Duke is working to make white supremacism and anti-Semitism more popular by offering less violent versions, for all those people who think blacks are inferior and a secret conspiracy of Jews run the world, but don’t want to be associated with anything physical? I don’t think that’s how this works.
I don’t recall him ever giving a speech in which he said “God damn America!”
No, he just writes books like Jewish Supremacism, and talks about establishing a separate homeland for African Americans.
Meanwhile, the context of Wright’s famous quote was:
I don’t see anything incorrect in his recounting of history (thought I’m not sure what he means by the government giving blacks drugs). The Old Testament is full of similar jeremiads (named for Wright’s namesake), in which the Hebrew prophets take their leaders to task for forsaking God. There’s certainly nothing racist or anti-American in condemning the U.S. government for failing to live up to its ideals.
thought I’m not sure what he means by the government giving blacks drugs
It’s a very popular conspiracy theory by loony blacks, including Maxine Waters. She has claimed that black drug use in the inner city is a CIA plot.
Wright, from what I can tell, has agitated on behalf of the black Americans (and others) who’ve been the victims of the organizations that Duke promotes. To see those things as comparable requires astonishing myopia.
So you’re telling me that agitating against white people (oh, excuse me, giving speeches on being victims of racism) doesn’t have detrimental consequences in our society? A constant barrage of “you can’t make it in society because of whitey” doesn’t turn youthful blacks into a life of crime?
Your myopia is sickening.
Of course I do. You don’t think all those years that Obama spent in his church didn’t affect his policy as president? You don’t think that the automatic accusations from the White House against white police officers involved in black shootings didn’t result at least a smidgen from Wright’s rants?
“Today Trump is the favorite candidate of racists from David Duke to the American Freedom Party.”
So if a racist supports Obama then Obama is a racist?
With logic like that, you’ll have to re-do the first grade……
“…when it turned out they were innocent…”
They were not innocent by any stretch of the imagination. They beat several people senseless, and held the woman down and felt her up while Matias Reyes raped her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case
It is an absolute crime that the present socialist mayor saw fit to reward them with $41M for their depredations a quarter century later.
Where did I say that the support of a racist means Trump is a racist?
My question for you is: what is it about Trump that makes him so attractive to white nationalists?
His rhetoric.