Introduction
So a number of officio-pundits are gobsmacked, flummoxed, pole-axed, and otherwise discomfited. Brexit. The Cubs. And now this. What a year. My initial reactions run along the lines of jumping Jehoshaphat, land of Goshen, and oh, my stars and garters.
But let me make a number of other snapshot observations, perhaps a tad more salient.
Alas for the Pollsters
The polls were way off. In the aftermath of that, we are now enduring the spectacle of interviewed experts explaining how it was that the experts had it all wrong. They are experts on that too, apparently. The problem with polling is that even in the best of situations you are talking to 2,000 people in order to find out what 100 million will do. And when you are trying to predict an election, if you do it in any kind of disciplined manner, you will want to poll the “likely voters.” But likely voters are determined by looking at what has happened in past elections, and all the past elections were normal elections. But this was in no way a normal election. How was the most experienced pollster in the world to know how to identify the right people to ask their questions?
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Evangelicals went for Trump in numbers markedly higher than their support for previous Republican candidates. But this was, in my view, a function of detestation, not a function of enthusiasm. Evangelicals clearly have a much higher gakkk! level with regard to Hillary than other groups did.
Expectations
Going into the night I was braced for a Trump victory, and looking forward to a Hillary loss. I was vindicated in the former, and absolutely delighted by the latter. Here is what I just tweeted to the rest of the world. “USA to the whole world @ our elections. RE: Trump: we are very sorry. RE: Clinton: you are most welcome.” I have been fighting the socialist left on everything my entire adult life, and a little before that. It will be a positive relief to have to fight the populist right on some things. I trust that I will be encouraged by some of the things Trump will do (i.e. the Supreme Court), hopeful about some things he might do (e.g. Trey Gowdy for Attorney General), and appalled by other things (being pro-business is not the same thing as being pro-economic liberty).
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
One of the things we are hearing from progressive elites is that they have now “realized they don’t live in the country they thought they lived in.” Right. But they most certainly live in a country that is very much like what they constantly accused it of being. This is the “boy who cried wolf” election. Having lived in an environment where simply being white was racist, where systemic racism explained all kinds of things up to and including climate change, where Tea Party advocates who wanted to do basic budgetary math were thereby racists, where moderate Republican politicos like Romney were pilloried for being racists, we have now arrived at the point where the meaninglessness of that word has been officially translated into electoral politics. People think they are doing nuanced “racism analysis,” and what they are actually doing is debasing the potency of the term.
And the same kind of thing is true with regard to other forms of political correctness. This includes issues like immigration, terrorism, treatment of women, etc. Everybody knows that Trump’s personal treatment of women has been detestable, and that is not the kind of thing that an election can wash away. But it is the kind of thing that an electorate, including the women in it, can be badgered into ignoring. Everything about Trump’s baggage that is both tawdry and now overlooked has been the direct result of overblown rhetoric from the cultural left.
Identity Politics Bites Back
On a related note, working class whites have been hectored for a generation on the high virtues of identity politics and so then, in an unexpected move, they finally decided to act as an identity group themselves. When you pour abuse on flyover country, and you do it for decades, this is the kind of reaction you will eventually get.
A great deal will be made out of the “non-college degree” levels of support for Trump, and how all the college-educated cool kids supported Hillary. The nature of the jab is obvious, but a bit of reflection should be spent on the fact that our colleges are currently functioning as factories for snowflakes and commies. In other words, remember that a college education ain’t what it used to be. And because this was a revolt against the elites, it turns out that nobody cares.
Too Big to Jail?
There is another problem, a practical thorny one. Outside the realm of overblown campaign rhetoric, Hillary really is a corrupt and mendacious politician who richly deserves to spend some time in jail. On the one hand, you don’t want a system where some people are above the law, “too big to jail,” and on the other you don’t want a system where the loser of an election goes to jail. In my view, in our situation, the latter outcome would be far worse, far more dangerous. So I think that one of the things Donald Trump needs to do is to let it be known that he will not interfere with any ongoing investigation of Hillary, but that if she is indicted and convicted of anything, he will pardon her. The price of the pardon would be that she would have to retire from public life—no memoirs, no Clinton Foundation, no nothing.
Anyhoo
In any case, this is going to be an adventure. I wish the new president and his family well. I hope he surprises everybody as much as he already has, but for different reasons. At the same time, I am grateful to be in a position to support or oppose him, depending on the issue. Here we go.
Given that 4 men in Benghazi died and all the money the government waste it on her felonies I think that biblical restitution would also have something to say about cancellating all of her future government financial, medical, travel benefits, etc.
Actually the polls were right, it was the forecasts that were off. Ask Steve Deace.
Well said, Doug.
I agree with Tim Chesus.
Not to beat the dead horse but also, oftentimes guilty citizen are required to pay court costs; I have no idea if this is biblical but theoretically how much are the Clinton taxpayer court costs that they both should have to repay? Driving them into utter destitution *seems* just, but again biblical law may not support this.
“One of the things we are hearing from progressive elites is that they have now “realized they don’t live in the country they thought they lived in.”” Meh, that’s just post-loss overreaction. The actual result is basically 50-50…hardly an overwhelming mandate for the nationalist right. All the same stuff was said in reverse in 08 and 12. One possible outcome–cross your fingers–is the sunset of social justice hate-whitey type stuff on the Democrat side for the foreseeable future. “The price of the pardon would be that she would have to retire from public life—no memoirs, no Clinton Foundation, no nothing.”… Read more »
Only the popular vote was even close. If you’re looking at the electoral college, all those close races add up to an overwhelming win, mirroring Obama’s big victory.
How does winning several states by 1% add up to an “overwhelming win”?
As I said several times during the race, who gets 52% and who gets 48% doesn’t really tell us much about the country. Seeing as it actually turned out 48-48, that tells us even less. For all purposes, this election (like 2000 and 2004 and 2012) was basically a tie, and the margin is far less important than the fact that 45+% of Americans were willing to vote for each of these candidates.
@matt comment on the reverse of 08/12 rings clear. The reason is that American is a Republic. The House representatives are elected by popular vote, the Senate (until recently) are elected by popular vote, and the president is elected by the electoral college. Overwhelming applies to the EC count. Since the president isnt elected by popular vote (Democratic) it does not matter how close those numbers are. As far as the turn out, while the volume is very high compaired to history, the percentage is not. It hasnt been since 1968 that American saw a 60%+ voter turnout and over… Read more »
So it’s an “overwhelming win” because the counties Trump won have more large swaths of government-owned forest and agricultural fields?
it is an overwhelming win
and an overwhelming mandate
each country has their own game
and whoever plays it well wins…
under FPP systems some parties with Just 33% of the pop vote get over half of the parliament….
I mean the last time Repubs had this much power was 1928!!!
Or 2001
awin
To your last sentence: I wish it would be so, but I doubt it.
One possible outcome–cross your fingers–is the sunset of social justice hate-whitey type stuff on the Democrat side for the foreseeable future.
one can hope, but it would be rather more consistent of them to double down.
Fortunately, the likelihood of Keith Ellison (a Black Muslim from Minneapolis) becoming head of the DNC suggests the “social justice hate-whitey” stuff will be intensified.
What are the chances the swamp will be less swampy next election? It should be less fetid than if H had won but this seems like a Yes, Prime Minister situation.
I’m so relieved she lost. I’m no trump fan but she is just so extremely terrible that even Trump looked good compared to her. Liberals lost last night and I’m going to celebrate today by eating, drinking and having a jolly good time.
81% of evangelical voters just voted for the first atheist president.- S Harris.
I’m pretty sure Trump believes in God. Just that he himself is that God.
I was talking in another forum about the election, and someone went way off the deep end, claiming that Trump and his followers are Satanists. I countered with “No, I think they just have themselves as idols.” :)
Both wise and true.
Some of my friends were literally crying last night. Doesn’t this show, in itself, how unhealthily prominent Washington has become in our lives? When I reminded them that they live in a very liberal state and are unlikely to be personally affected by many new policies, they tell me I just don’t get it.
But at least they can buy all the weed they need to get over this!
I am so frustrated by the fact that people who are outraged when their candidate loses can’t see that they are just the same as their “opponents.” I was pretty distraught for the past eight years, but I lived through it. (Which is not to say I’m not incredibly frustrated and angry that this election had only these two terrible options. But really. Hillary?)
Everyone needs to stop and take a deep breath. I do not like this outcome. But pretending that this is the rebirth of the third reich is really annoying.
Yes. Additionally, I really appreciated Bill Maher admitting that he and his fellows cried wolf about Bush, McCain, and Romney. Hopefully he’ll admit the same about Trump.
You are mistaken if you think there was equivalency in the caliber of candidates on every level. Please don’t make me go through it again.
1) I hate Trump. I’m not saying that Bush, McCain, and Romney are as stupid and wicked as he is.
2) However, I think it’s clear that he’s just a narcissitic celebrity, not a fascist dictator. Is he worse? Yes. Is he the worst possible, or even WWII fascist level (or 1950s communist level)? No.
3) No one is “making you” do anything. I wasn’t talking to you, and I don’t really want to.
The good thing about these claims is that they get pretty clearly tested out. Was Bush as bad as people were claiming? Well, in some senses no, in other senses he was even worse. I don’t think anyone predicted the massive increase in debts, war, and terrorism a Bush administration would bring. Was Obama? A pretty clear no. Compare the “2012” letter that James Dobson wrote in 2008 with the actual Obama administration, and he doesn’t come remotely close to fulfilling expectations. So where will Trump land? We actually get to find out. And the impressions are so dramatically different,… Read more »
I don’t think you are giving Trump enough credit. He pulled out a victory with not only the Democrats and 90% of the press actively campaigning against him (I guess that’s redundant since the press is just another wing of the Democrat party); but the Republican establishment was against him too. He engineered an unconventional campaign on a shoe string budget and did it brilliantly; other than a few dumb comments. You really ought to show a little charity toward your president-elect.
Do you really think low-energy Jeb was a superior candidate?
I respect the office. I think the man is a sham, a cretin, and ad disgusting example of cynical irresponsible voting. You elected an amoral pagan, thrice married, adulterous sexual assaulter of multiple women. A business failure who is due in court for bilking thousands of victims. I wish I cared little enough to be able to take pleasure in the myriad ways his character that reflect miserably on your decision over the next four years. A few dumb comments? hahaha! I’ll just let that one sit there. Jeb Bush was qualified to lead and understood how government works. Trump… Read more »
So was Kasich…
90 % of the press was NOT actively campaaigning against him. He got tons of free publicity during the nomination process.
Do you think the outcome could have been different if Biden had been the candidate?
I wouldn’t be able to say. I would have liked to see that. I am fairly certain that Hillary made it clear that this was her turn for the top of the ticket and made sure everyone else got out of the way.
Actually, could you go through it again? (I want a version that’s suitable for framing!) ????
But anyhoo, Hillary’s favorite “spirit cooking ” recipe is an apt metaphor for her career:
“Haunted Hash”! ????????????
I am frustrated as well. I was disappointed to see the protests today in major cities. When Trump proposes legislation that I really disagree with, I am quite willing to protest. But protesting against the results of the democratic process strikes me as unAmerican.
I agree. Protesting an election that was fair and square is just sour grapes. There is going to be plenty to protest against coming down the pike.
I have a relative who just apologized to all the women who have ever been sexually assaulted or abused, on behalf of people who voted for Clinton.
The level of denial required to overlook the fact that whatever other issues might concern one, voting for an enabler-in-chief demonstrated no actual marginal concern for such women, is breathtaking.
What a good idea! I am in the mood for issuing apologies today. I apologize, in the name of the entire Democratic party, to everyone who has ever felt marginalized because of his or her race, ethnicity, creed, orientation, political views, and tastes in literature. I apologize to anyone who has ever felt too tall, too short, too fat, or too thin. I apologize to those who are triggered daily by the callousness of our modern world, as well as to those who are too insensitive to recognize an insult when it smacks them across the face. I apologize to… Read more »
The weeping and gnashing of teeth from the pundits and news anchors last night was a beauty to behold.
I laughed for minutes straight, several time over the hours
I do have to admit, I have some sympathy for some of my non-White friends who had very, very negative, depressed reactions. It isn’t so much what federal policies will affect them, its the feeling that a majority of the country, or close to it, is supportive of openly expressed hatred of them as people.
The same as any white, heterosexual, openly Christian, conservative male has felt under Obama and was expecting to feel under Hillary.
Which is absolutely amazing to me, because White, heterosexual, openly Christian males have held all the branches of power in this country (and not just political) for not only its entire history, but even right now. It’s pretty easy to talk about the worst things that Donald Trump has done and said to specifically target certain minority groups – Mexicans, Muslims, Blacks. What was the wort thing you felt that Obama or Clinton said to specifically target White men? And I’m not talking about liberal/conservative rhetoric about political opponents like happens every election, I mean actually targeting you for your… Read more »
“because White, heterosexual, openly Christian males have held all the branches of power in this country (and not just political) for not only its entire history, but even right now.”
Obama is a christian? HRC is a male? Fauxcahontas (Elizabeth Warren) is a male?
Mini Schumer (anthony Weiner) is a christian? Full Schumer is a christian? Elija Cummings is white? Loretta Lynch is white and male?
Wow! Who knew? ; – )
J’, you might be confusing the term “realist” with other inapropriate race related perjoratives.
Jonathan, Jonathan, Jonathan.
We don’t hate non-white people.
We hate people like you.
How very christian of you ashv. Nothing like a victory for a hateful demagogue to bring out the sportsmanship in his bootlickers.
The truth is not in you.
The spirit of your lord and savior does not currently at least appear to be in you.
Done. (the weed part.)
“Some of my friends were literally crying last night. Doesn’t this show, in itself, how unhealthily prominent Washington has become in our lives?”
Or, perhaps it shows that 1984 is here, that we are in it, and that your friends have been brain-washed by The Ministry of Truth.
Some of it is rhetorical hyperbole, and some is just plain hysteria. And I think a lot of it comes from living in a very liberal city in a very liberal state, and never having the opportunity to engage with decent people who have opposing views. That is one of the advantages of a site like this one. When I am informed of plans in the works to establish internment camps for Jews, I simply cannot imagine the vast majority of people here going along with that.
According to 1 John 3, you’re either a child of God or a child of Satan, there is no middle ground.
I think there’s a difference between being on Satan’s side and worshipping Satan as part of an organized cult. And I think that the person I was talking to was saying that Trump and his supporters are specifically especially evil, and not just part of the great idolatry that all who don’t constantly seek God as their highest end fall into.
” I think that the person I was talking to was saying that Trump and his supporters are specifically especially evil”
Especially evil for what? Supporting a man who is at least not as pro-abortion and pro-gay as Hillary? And who will most certainly do a better job with Supreme Court appointees? I hope you rebuked the guy.
I did. However, I do think there is a tiny but very loud group of Trump supporters who do believe that women and non-white people are inferior to white men. I believe that opinion is evil. It is, though, in my experience, not the majority, and thus not an acceptable label for Trump or his supporters as a whole. Most of the people I know who voted for Trump did so because he was, in their view, the lesser of two evils. I can’t agree with that logic, but I can respect it (though I can also respect the reverse… Read more »
Remember, Trump won the Republican primaries, and a lot of people who didn’t vote for him in the primary were still quite enthusiastic in the general. The “lesser of two evils” vote can’t be THAT high.
And there may be more “non-white people are inferior” Trump supporters than you want to admit:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/the_majority_of_trump_supporters_surveyed_described_black_people_as_less.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-race-idUSKCN0ZE2SW
they may believe women have different roles, not inferior- that is not Evil- I guess the God of the bible is evil as well…
Yes Non Whites in America by and large are inferior – America is not getting the creme de la creme of the world anymore…
Smart non whites are doing amazing things in their own nations…
again, by and large…
I agree that women have different roles than men. What I’ve encountered here on the blog is that women are dumber than men as a group, and worthy of contempt as a group – as well as being expected to be more sexually pure than men.
I don’t have much to say to your judgment of inferiority and superiority of races in America – I believe that the goal of Christians should be to make disciples of all nations, wherever we are – to raise up those who aren’t the “cream of the crop”, not leave them alone.
yes women are dumber than men in some areas
men are dumber than women in some areas…
it is beautiful, hence we need each other- so its no big deal.
That’s not what I said. People who think women are dumber than men in general in all things, all the time – people who think that saying, “I’d rather be arguing with a woman” is an insult.
Additionally, the different areas of strength intellectually are on a spectrum, and I find the spectrum has enough depth that assuming men and women have those weaknesses all the time isn’t very useful.
I have always found it interesting that men who say they believe that women are by and large less intelligent do not tend to like intelligent women when they meet them. In the little time I spent (like a couple of hours) reading alt-right sites, I found this contradiction inexplicable. Women are dumb, emotional, irrational, and controlled by something called their “hamster’ which I was afraid to look up on Google in case it led me to a site I would prefer to avoid. On the other hand, their particular loathing was for smart women. Run at the first sign… Read more »
Well, the alt-right would probably be happy to admit their hatred of intelligence in women – I feel like they don’t quite understand genetics, for all their crypto-eugenical ideas. I find it kind of hilarious that the people who truly love intelligent women tend to be people like Doug, who is incredibly proud of his brilliant daughters.
But, the alt-right says, men of sense want silly wives!
Please provide quotes if you’re making a claim like this. Did Vox Day, Cernovich or the more openly Christian wing of the alt-right (Dalrock, Cane Caldo, etc.) actually say this?
I’m talking about the conversations I had with two posters who I had not seen before or since on this blog.
So you based it on two random people on this blog…who might have been trolls for all you know?
Hi, mkt, I don’t think the alt-right sites I found these sentiments on were Christian–in fact, I would rather doubt it unless there are Christians out there who are okay with pick-ups and one night stands. But sometimes I think nothing would surprise me anymore.
It didn’t work out too well for Mr.Bennet!
No. No it did not. But as much as I hate Mencken, I believe that silly wives are the same way that he describes democracy – people who vote for it deserve to get it good and hard.
I agree with you. But I suppose, in fairness, we need to distinguish between unintelligent and silly. I have known people of average abilities who were not silly at all, as well as plenty of smart people who were. I think Jane Austen would expect even the non-too-bright to be sober, right minded, and principled.
Agreed.
And the reference was to a statement by Mr. Knightley, I believe,
Really! Was it about Harriet?
Yes, it was about Harriet. It was in the big quarrel he and Emma had about her giving Harriet foolish hopes in general, set off by finding out that Emma had persuaded her that she was too good for Robert Martin. If you think hard enough about that, there’s a typically Janeian reversal going on there — Knightley clearly thinks that Robert Martin is a man of sense, knows he wants the rather silly Harriet as a wife, but is backed into something of a rhetorical corner in the argument, and so winds up saying something he might believe in… Read more »
That is a very interesting point. It made me think of something else. My impression has been that, historically, being legitimate was of equal importance to the middle and lower middle classes. I think Robert Martin was exceptional in not objecting to Harriet’s parentage. Martin must have wanted a child-wife, one whom he could guide and whose inane conversation would not irritate. I would have thought that, in general, those who are not rich, who will not be sending their children away to school, and who don’t follow the aristocratic practice of putting distance between husband and wife, are the… Read more »
Jane, I have thought long and hard about this, and at last equilibrium has returned to the fevered brain of the Jillybean. Knightly in general would advise Martin not to marry Harriett. But there are three things at play here: (1) he knows his mother and sisters really like her and favor the match. If they can tolerate Harriet’s vapidity, then Robert probably has grown up with women who are not mentally stimulating and maybe Knightly knows that Harriet won’t get on Robert’s nerves; (2) thinks that Robert is crazy in love with Harriet for reasons best known to himself,… Read more »
Well, all that may be true (though on #1, my impression was simply that the Martin ladies were kind and friendly rather than dizzy themselves, and that Harriet was simply limited in intellectual gifts and sweetly naive, rather than difficult to tolerate) but still — whatever justifications you might make for dear Robert, Knightley’s opinion of him gives the lie to the dictum, “Sensible men do not want silly wives.” :-) Rather, those justifications explain why the statement is not reliably true. I hadn’t even thought of Isabella. I am not sure she is silly or dim, but it is… Read more »
you obviously do not have enough arguments with women.
Because I would realize that they are stupid?
yes that is exactly what I mean’t
sigh…
going in circles here..
most women would have understood this by now!!
If you were willing to articulate your argument, it might help.
no you keep trying to paint the whole world as anti women…
I paint feminists as anti-women, because they want women to be miserable. I paint the alt-right as anti-women, because they think women are intellectually inferior to men. Also, the PUA/Manosphere seems to regard women as pretty much just existent for men’s use.
Given that, according to a link I just commented on, the alt-right is less than .02 percent of the population of the US, and feminist are definitely not all of the world either, I fail to see how I am making such a universal claim.
women were created for men’s use…..
Well, I think I understand this. But, I have often thought something unfair (and I am not meaning you at all). Some men complain that women in general argue irrationally or emotionally or discursively and so on. But, often, when the same men encounter a woman who can argue without being irrational or emotional, they find her unfeminine.
I believe there are gender differences, but it is hard to tease these out from culture and education. When I was a child at school in the 1960s, it was standard for teachers and parents to say, even to a very good female student, “You don’t need to worry about math.” Or, “Of course, you find it easy to learn French–you’re a girl, but I think you’ll find physics too difficult.” Even a girl who was naturally good at math had the good sense to conceal it. Instead, we turned to the nerdy guys with slide rules and said, “Gee,… Read more »
anyone who says things like Girls can’t do math is silly, but girls do tend to like other subjects, it does not mean they can’t do it…
same with men
Women are capable of working, men are capable of running the house etc, but it does not mean it is right, or natural or what God wants…
Male and female are similar yet different, and fulfillment is found in following God
The problem with women having equal intelligence and different assigned roles (and I am not disagreeing with there being such roles) is what to do with the outliers. Some incredibly intelligent women can view motherhood and domesticity as a primary career while working off excess brains in other directions. (I have also seen what can happen when they don’t find these other directions; an idle mind is also the devil’s playground.) But some brilliant women are going to be bored out of their wits at home. They have not the slightest interest in cooking, decorating, hospitality, or childcare, and lack… Read more »
I tend to agree. The idea of the spectrum, as Deborah Tanner pointed out, is crucial to my understanding of manhood and womanhood. Finding room for the outliers without exiling them or ignoring them is the difficulty. I do believe that attempting to normalize life choices that do not tend to produce children who become disciples of Christ is healthy for a society – but neither is a society which offers no room for alteration based on gifts and relationships. Our current society poisons women against children and finding fulfillment in husband and family, so I do think the conservative… Read more »
When did America EVER get the creme de la creme of the world? Not the early colonists, not the later colonists, not in the early days of the republic, not in the 19th century.
But methinks you have limited experience with east Asian immigrants and their descendants. Whether they are or are not the creme de la creme of their native heath, it’s hard to call them “by and large inferior.”
look at what immigrants primarily do…
We will see, but I think you have that all wrong…
Not unlike Randman himself! Now that you mention it! ; – )
‘guess now they have something in common.
As an atheist of course that carries the same weight as me believing in your god adad.
But yes, if that makes you feel better about your own superstitious belief go for it. My first task I will carry out as my own god is to go light a bush on fire and speak to an illiterate goat herder. I’ve always wanted to do THAT awesome god trick. Or maybe I will turn myself into my own son and a ghost at the same time. Better yet, I’ll make wine and potato chips disappear. (Easier and I have practice.)
Knock yourself out Randi, but consider a bit of friendly advice, stay away from prophecy. ; – )
“Hillary will win. Trump will lose BIGLY. In fact HRC’s chances have risen 5.5 percentage points on the aggregate 538 poll in the past 6 six hours. Prepare to be lead by a woman ashv as much as it is going to kill you as a reformed christian.” Randi
Yes I may have to fire my oracle 538 but I’ll still be in line with one of your god’s multiple prophecy fails: Ezekiel 29:8-15
See, us imperfect gods have to stick together.
I never knew Egyptian exceptionalism was a thing! ; – )
Sounds kind of like atheist exceptionalism.
(I’ll be back, I have to go walk the dog. He actually is execptional!)
Whatever Trump is, he’s not an atheist. And he certainly isn’t in with Harris’ little program of demonizing religious belief — he’s quite happy to leverage it to his own advantage.
Feeling your pain–and liking it. Is schadenfreude sinful? I know scripture says don’t gloat over your enemy because it might make God go easy on him. So this is really a blessing I’m giving you here. God bless you! Good and hard!
Schadenfreude is biblically complicated. It seems like it’s legit to rejoice over the discomfiture of the enemy (provided you’re properly identifying the enemy) but not over his actual sufferings. It’s good that he loses power, or property, or reputation, because that means he can’t carry on his evil as effectively; it’s not good to be happy contemplating his misery.
I think that’s how it works.
But it’s the actual Schadenfreude part of that, that can be so deliciously tempting at times.
Thanks–I think I understand. What would please me most is for enemies to repent and become friends so I think I’m on the right side of that.
But try to keep a little sympathy for those who opposed Trump out of genuine concern about some of his policies. This morning I am very worried about a couple of my friends who will lose their health insurance. They were uninsurable prior to Obamacare, and they will be uninsurable again. This is terrifying to those who are fighting deadly diseases.
Blessings!
I hope not. I thought he had said he was going to do that in his first days in office. But your premium is outrageous! Prior to ACA, my state had a pool for otherwise uninsurable people, but the premiums were too high for most people to afford. For example, I could certainly not afford to pay yours! I am so grateful that I got Medicare this year. My very own special snowflake thought Trump’s win was a good reason for her to miss her 7 AM dance class this morning! When I expressed polite skepticism, she pointed out that… Read more »
I sympathize. There was a time twenty years ago when my husband I were paying $1200 a month for coverage–which did not include prescriptions. After the mortgage, it took what was left of his paycheck. I did sometimes have uncharitable feelings towards those who made a deliberate decision to spend their money elsewhere and let the county pick up their medical costs.
“Shopping across state lines” is fraught with problems. It keeps states from being able to regulate their own health care, and thus removes any regulation from state control to federal control (because there will always be “that state” which is willing to win health insurance head office taxes in exchange for no regulation at all). When health insurance is unregulated, or lightly regulated, the health insurance companies always win at the expense of the consumer. That is because one of the major ways that such companies make money is by denying as many claims as they can. And they have… Read more »
My personal anecdote is that my premium was cut in half by the ACA.
Hey bud! What can I pray for? Jilly’s friends too.
God, thanks for this day. Thanks for g’ and his sense of humor. Thanks that you’ve helped him live through his condition. Help him to keep on. Give him relief from attacks and side effects from meds. God be with, bless and heal all folks who are ill or have conditions. Give them loving friends and family, as they are loving friends and family. Help people to be able to get the medical care that they need. And God, thanks for all of the medical advances you have given us over the years. And thanks for the salvation you gave… Read more »
Fortunately, it is not required to boil the ocean in order to help uninsurable people get medical care through charitable means. Charity is how it used to be done before forced redistribution. Charity relies on a culture of compassion, of course. So let’s hope the forced redistribution socialism hasn’t killed the charity culture completely.
He said he’d repeal it on his first day. Don’t you believe him?
It’s what Trump said not what you said. So we can’t put any confidence in any of Trump’s promises?
Butt he said he’d repeal it on his first day lock stock and barrel and his followers believed him. Now he’s backing off. Was he just saying that to manipulate his followers?
I’m fine with you gloating. You were a part of electing the most unqualified candidate for president in American history. He will manifest his utter incompetence in his new role and surround himself by cronies as he has neither judgement nor attention span for the work ahead. You are dancing on your own mess.
Music to my ears.
Says the guy who also said:
I’m sorry you are unable to parse out the difference between believing aggregate poll numbers and judging a person’s character based on past behavior. Must be confusing for you.
“Past behavior may not be an indicator of future performance.”
But seriously, Trump runs 500 businesses (less the 4 that went bankrupt). Do you think he runs them all personally? He has a 99+% success rate at picking managers for them. I expect that gives him a leg up on picking advisors and “managers” for his programs as president.
We’ll see when he starts picking his cabinet. I’m reserving any judgment until then.
Nice try at deflection, Randman, but it doesn’t change my point, which is that your predictive ability is defective. That’s all. Whatever else you read into my comment — which was mostly you anyway — is completely on you, and completely irrelevant.
But since you brought up aggregate poll numbers, maybe next time you shouldn’t be so gullible.
You are conflating losing a a game of dice with being able to judge someone’s abilities based on character and performance. That may be what is confusing you.
You don’t read too well, do you? Especially when it’s your own words.
“Hillary will…”
“He [Trump] will…”
Both of your statements had to do with predicting the future.
You’re terrible at it.
Polls are the closest mechanism we have to project election outcomes and suggest the chance of winning based on %. If you know anything about odds, a relatively slender 20% chance of a winning allows for frequent satisfaction, sometimes the first metaphorical roll of the dice. And if the same odds are revealed to actually be 80%? You can grasp this if you think about it. I’ll wait.
And yet, despite your feeble attempt to mitigate your own gullibility, the polls were still wrong. News flash: polls have been wrong before, as Bob Shrum so painfully learned after he said this to John Kerry:
Or, how about this little gem:
Your odds in Vegas must be fabulous!
Show me where I said polls are infallible. Odds are the best you can have in an uncertain scenario. They are for and against you a statistically specific portion of the time. Continue the weird self gratification mouthing whatever bone you seem to have grabbed onto.
Show me where I said you said polls are infallible. Since Hillary’s memory issues seem to be affecting you, here is a reminder of what you said:
You admitted you believed the polls there, champ. They were wrong, you made assertions based on those polls, therefore you were wrong.
You’re just embarrassing yourself now. But you seem to be a bit of a masochist, so by all means keep going.
There there, you conflated two completely different things dear fp: 1) my trusting polling from all across the country. Sources and voting behaviors that I had no control over knowing, from organizations doing their best to collate data. Something that in the end ultimately came down to betting odds. This is something I never denied doing. 2) My assessment of Trump based on his past actions just lousy with evidence: tweets, speeches, failed business, sexual assault and so on. Your initial point that this idiotic back and forth is based on was that because I trusted in better’s odds re… Read more »
Randman, you seem to have a problem distinguishing facts from speculation. I suggest you spend more time dealing with the former and engaging in less of the latter. Anything else you have to say is simply white noise.
You were gullible. You were wrong. End of story. Repeating yourself over and over again does not change these facts, no matter how hard you spin and rationalize.
In short, you were defeated. You might want to acquaint yourself with a little concept called “reality”.
So as I understand it, the real thrust of your weird feedback loop is that you want to continue to insist that I was wrong about the the polls. Where is the enjoyment in that for you asI have said so myself? It looks a little doltish to repeat it over and over again.
Get some rest.
Randman, learn to read. I didn’t say you were wrong about the polls; you were wrong because of the polls. But your mistake is that you stupidly believed the polls from a lying media and hubristically shot off your fool mouth about Hillary becoming President. Since your prior prognostications came from a media-induced stupor, there’s no reason to believe you now when you so confidently predict what horrible, nasty things Trump will do once he assumes office. This is my point, not that you’ll get it because you’re trying awfully hard not to understand it: You aren’t exactly reliable when… Read more »
Hey guy, you seem a little overly upset about this, and me. I think you should relax no? What do you care what I think? My ego is not involved in who won the election, whether the polls were right or not, or I was right or not, or any straw man you create about it. You are mashing up two separate things in the service of crowing and I have pointed them out over and over again. So respectfully, don’t be a clod about it.
Hey guy, still contributing to the “weird feedback loop”, I see. And resorting to the old “you must be upset…” line. All highly amusing, highly predictable, and STILL doesn’t detract from your lack of credibility. Speaking of clods and strawmen: Hillary will win. Trump will lose BIGLY. Prepare to be lead by a woman ashv as much as it is going to kill you as a reformed christian.But yes, if that makes you feel better about your own superstitious belief go for it.In fact I was objectively thrilled to possibly have a woman be president as I am not a… Read more »
FYI, a straw man is a bogus argument set up to be beaten down. Like yours. None of those above meet that requirement. They are just fun statements mostly to ashv who is a silly bigot in a confederate flag. Also, show some creativity, Don’t just repurpose my vocabulary back at me. I think hard about my insult choices. You’re being a bit HAM-HANDED in your execution.)
Also, whence means ‘from what place’ or ‘where’.
LOL! I don’t care what they say about you in these parts Rand, that was downright funny and true.
I thought you had left. How’s the Trump victory taste?
I follow the Lamb and he’s seated in victory at the right hand of the Father, so everyday is cause for rejoicing.
Glad to see you back Memi! I gat back over your way at some point. One blog is all I can work with right now.
RandMan wrote:
Trump doesn’t claim to be an atheist, but if atheists want to take responsibility for him as one of theirs, who am I to stop them?
who does not believe in murdering babies, feminism etc….
better the atheist than the satanist…
YUGE! God is merciful to us sinners.
The pundits are so Marie Antoinette. They have no idea what’s going on with the people. If they would spend even a half hour on WikiLeaks@twitter or listening to conservative talk radio call-ins, they would see that LOTS of folks (finally) realize that MSM = Pravda of progressives.
I have to disagree on the “he should pardon her”. How would a pardon in any way serve justice or affirm “no one is above the law”? Hillary Clinton is a congenital liar who, among many, many crimes, committed multiple treasonous acts that result in the deaths of US citizens and foreign intelligence assets. The most that should be done for her upon conviction would be commuting her sentence from capital punishment to life in prison without parole, and then only if she confesses her crimes.
A capital treason conviction is not really on the table in a real world sense.
A pardon after conviction affirms justice because it subjects the person to the standards in place, and declares the crimes for what they are. A pardon would be an act of mercy, done not to spare Hillary Clinton but to spare the country the dangers of retributive use of the justice system against political losers — and those are monumental dangers. And mercy is not opposed to justice, but orthogonal to it.
What “monumental dangers” do you predict from punishing crime?
The legitimization of the practice of the justice department finding something to prosecute after every election, and routinely seeing losing candidates jailed (since charges can either be found or trumped up by a motivated administration). I don’t see that as a consequence of punishing crime in principle, I see that as a consequence of attempting to punish crimes in certain situations, given human depravity. What we have here is two competing goods — avoiding the situation where losing an election is effectively criminalized a la a banana republic, or not letting people who are no longer in a position to… Read more »
As if our current political climate isn’t vicious and divisive enough.
Opinions differ on that point.
And just to be clear, the specter of Hillary Clinton in jail per se bothers me not a bit. But I think there are real considerations in such a course that have to be admitted.
Perhaps in the same way that Ford chose to pardon Nixon rather than further drag the country apart.
And, of course,
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.
Orthogonal?
Related in space (metaphorically) but not opposites.
i thought this was funny:
http://right-mind.us/priceless/
Make that Pravda of globalists.
“The polls were way off”.
I wish to respectfully disagree on one small point. While it’s obvious that the polls did not reflect the final outcome of the election, I think it’s incorrect to blame that on the inability of the pollsters. There is plenty of evidence to show that the pollsters were deliberately oversampling democrats in order to make the numbers for Hillary look better than they actually were. In that case, the polls no longer are meant to reflect public opinion accurately, but are probably intended to *influence* public opinion instead.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples
Polls projected Clinton to win the popular vote by about 3% and have about a 70% chance at the electoral vote. Even dedicated Republican pollsters like Rasmussen had Clinton at +2% on the final day. For Trump to win the electoral and come within 0.5% of Clinton in the popular vote is a polling miss, but not a particularly big one. Since it’s impossible for polls to be perfect fortune-tellers every time, getting one off a little after being close to perfect in 2008 and 2012 isn’t too surprising.
Still. shows me that pollsters, like generals, are always fighting the last war – expecting things to be like they were.
Can somebody get Christian Histo on the horn?
Why, did you lose the password to his account?
Don’t you think HRC will be scapegoated by the left? Rene Girard style?
I doubt it. Not that they like her but any attack on her is an attack on the system.
If a pardon comes, she will get her memoirs and keep the foundation and have the public life if she can get it. That is what a pardon does. Legally, it no longer happened.
Unless the pardon is extended only on condition of a prior public agreement that she retire from public life, divest from the foundation, and not profit further from her public service. There’s nothing legally that prevents Trump from requiring a promise before acting. The agreement might not be enforceable but it is still possible, and it would carry some moral force even with the likes of HRC.
That said, I’m not saying I consider this a realistic scenario. But it seems a logically possible one.
The Republic must die, that our families might live.
Down with the Constitution.
Down with the USA.
God save the nations of America.
That’s why I kinda hope that Trump *doesn’t* win the popular vote.
Hillary wins big in urban centers, whereas Trump takes suburbs and rural areas, clearly showing the contrasting cultures between them. #NotMyPresident? Sure! Now let’s talk about why we should stop pretending that we’re ONE united people.
Ironically, the Confederacy doesn’t look so dumb and horrible for wanting to limit centralization.
The Confederacy doesn’t look so dumb and horrible re: anything to anyone willing to listen to what they actually said vs. the Liberal tripe we’re fed from our “history” books.
I’m going to extend one aspect of Doug’s comments, in case someone might away with a conclusion Doug was not making. The issue with polling (or what in statistics is called sampling) is the critical need to insure your sample is representative of the overall population. If you meet that assumption, a very small sample will yield a very likely prediction of the whole. If you don’t meet that criteria, all bets are off. Literally. Maybe not by much, but significantly. That’s the way God made the world. In the normal course of events if assumptions are met probabilities will… Read more »
The Experts RE polling failures: “But trust us on our climate models. Those are Scientifically Accurate.”
Yeah, and look at the hubris and trash-talking of certain commenters here. Hillary will win “BIGLY” and we’ll take pleasure seeing her rule over conservative Christian men. Way too much faith in their “science” and smarts.
I have an acredited MS but I think I’d fit in much better with the non-college educated crowd.
“So I think that one of the things Donald Trump needs to do is to let it be known that he will not interfere with any ongoing investigation of Hillary, but that if she is indicted and convicted of anything, he will pardon her.”
What?
Remember that he also thinks that procuring an abortion should not be a crime.
Ashv, I do think that Hillary should have been indicted and convicted prior to this. And gone to jail prior to this. I simply think that doing it right after an election unleashes forces we don’t want to unleash.
And if you are going to cite my position on women procuring abortions, try to get it right.
So you do believe procuring an abortion should be a crime? My apologies – I stand corrected.
If I remember correctly, I think he said that first we would need to re-establish a culture in which abortion is viewed with horror and revulsion. That culture does not exist where I live. We have produced several generations of young men and women who have been taught explicitly that abortion is an acceptable way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.
If so we disagree on which is the cart and which is the horse. To make an analogy – I do not wait until my children have an aversion to disobedience before I discipline then for it.
No, of course not. But, if you found yourself responsible for a child who has never been told about the duty of obedience–who will gaze at you blankly when you explain what obedience means, and who in fact has been taught that disobedience is a virtue–you might allow for a brief period of time for him to adjust his ideas.
The likeliest outcome of an insistence on criminalizing abortion for the mother is that people will be unwilling to vote for otherwise good laws restricting abortion access. Is your insistence on punishing the woman so strong that you would rather not restrict abortion at all rather than pass what you see as flawed legislation?
No. But Wilson’s position was not based on political strategy.
First thing I thought today was how right you are about polls.
Hillary Clinton won Doug Wilson’s county by 843 votes. I wonder if that was do to his efforts…
Or maybe it’s because liberals outnumber conservatives in Latah County. Just a thought.
Moscow is one of the communist enclaves in Idaho because of the two universities in close proximity. The University of Idaho is the largest employer in Moscow and of course, the communists here voted for their fellow communist Hillary.
I look forward to when those who support death are not listened to as much as they are now.
Moscow? Oh yeah, that’s right; appropriately named. But the point was *** 843 *** votes; is that within the number of influenced votes? That’s the question.
The virtue signalling alone in these comments is enough to make me glad Trump won.
Well, here is some non-virtue signalling on the part of California voters. The proposition to require porn actors to wear condoms failed. A well-funded lobby pointed out to California voters that this requirement would simply cause the porn industry to move out of state. And we couldn’t have that, could we?
Please thank your fellow Californians for not importing that industry to Minnesota, which deeply desires to be a frozen Hollywood.
I think it is too cold in Minnosota to have a porn industry. I for one would shudder at the thought of removing my parka, let alone anything nearer my skin.
We do heat the inside of the buildings here, ya know.
Never enough.
I am beginning to understand why you are an ex-pat Canadian.
I spent five years of my youth at latitude 60. As God is my witness, I will never be cold again.
PS, I am paraphrasing, not taking the Lord’s name in vain.
Thank you, Scarlet O’Jillybean.
I am taking joy in that this outcome is a kind of a “reset” button, a kind of wake-up call to the left and the liberal elites who were convinced that the world described in their theme song (“Imagine”) was just around the corner, until it wasn’t. And, as mentioned below, this certainly feels like God giving us another chance. This is an opening, a crack in the wall, a chink in the armor to shine the light of Jesus. It’s a chance to show that a life lived for Jesus really is better than the path we were going… Read more »
I listened to NPR on the way into work just for the sheer joy of it.
LOL!!! I’m sure there’s a sin in there somewhere, but I truly did laugh out loud.
They seemed a little mystified on the Diane Rehm Show.
The coffee I had this morning was unnecessary and superfluous as their stupefaction was stimulant enough.
A good thing already happening as a result of the Trump victory is that it is encouraging the movements in more European countries to exit the EU. Think of it: Swexit (Sweden), Nexit (Netherlands), Italexit (Italy), Frexit (France), etceterexit (a bunch of other exits)…
Czechzit–job description for a proofreader.
Croaxit–sounds like someone died.
Romexit–an Italian highway sign.
Bulgexit–the new fat-fighting drug.
Germexit–the new hand sanitizer.
But I have no idea what to do with Latvia and Lithuania.
Latvexit, Lithuaexit.
Once the rending of the garments phase is over, I wonder how the Democrats will recover. I think their fundamental error was believing that demographic trends would put them in office no matter what they actually said or did. This led Hillary to make two big mistakes. First, she assumed she had all of Obama’s voters behind her by default. But Obama was a charismatic figure who ran on a platform of an outsider looking to change the game. Hillary wisely never tried this angle, but that inability coupled with her lack of charisma meant that big portions of the… Read more »
Proverbs 29 1 Whoever remains stiff-necked after many rebukes will suddenly be destroyed—without remedy. 2 When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan. 3 A man who loves wisdom brings joy to his father, but a companion of prostitutes squanders his wealth. 4 By justice a king gives a country stability, but those who are greedy for[a] bribes tear it down. “On the one hand, you don’t want a system where some people are above the law, “too big to jail,” and on the other you don’t want a system where the loser of… Read more »
You probably don’t want to invoke being “duely convicted” after this campaign, what with the tendency towards gun violence already. Being duly convicted would be a much better pathway.
Thanks for the spelling lesson! I guess I am too generous with vowels! ; – )
On the other hand, perhaps there will be dual endictments!
LMAO
Thanks for asking. He’s in a very bad way.
Wikileaks may be about to make it impossible for anyone (Obama or Trump) to pardon HRC.
Let us pray it is so.
http://www.theonion.com/article/area-liberal-no-longer-recognizes-fanciful-wildly–54670
http://i.imgur.com/EzWHIke.png
Just so we stop before the last line, and add the repeal of the 19th amendment, I’m good.
Why would women ever vote to disenfranchise themselves?
Because they finally come to realize that living in an America in which women do not have the franchise is far better than living in a North America ruled by Moslems.
While I would love to see the 19th Amendment repealed, I just don’t see that happening before its effects destroy the country.
How about we try to repeal the 17th Amendment first?
Regarding the picture text, ‘hope and change’ and ‘make america great again’ are essentialy the same slogan.
So what happened to all that Democratic voter fraud anyway?
Why do you assume it didn’t happen?
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/11/08/some-problems-reported-as-voters-head-to-polls/
They didn’t do quite enough this time. Obviously.
This could all turn out really different in the long run. I think what just happened might be a “market’s up but fundamentals look bad” situation. 1. Trump doesn’t live up to expectations. And how in the world could he? 2. Former Trumpers are once again jaded by a politician who broke promises and does things for himself and his friends at their and their childrens’ expense. So they give up any hope for changing things through the peaceful political process. 3a. Revolution. OR 3b. Give up. Then Dems win landslide in 2020 or 2024 with their own Trump –… Read more »
Yeah, Sanders’ popularity scared me. I can see a young, hip, better-looking version (male, female or trans) doing really well in a future election…especially if millennials don’t grow up.
Bingo. Just everybody remember, the people who are either burning the flag and screaming in the streets OR demanding a safe space bubble around them, in 8 years they will replace a lot of the old timers who voted for Trump.
Yep–very frightening. The only silver lining I see is that Soros shouldn’t be around much longer. The looters and social justice snowflakes will have to get their funding elsewhere.
Excellent. Except that #2 discounts the power of people to delude themselves to believe what their commitments make them want to be true. It will take a LOT for former Trumpers (I mean the real Trumpsters, not the NeverHillarys of various robustness) to believe that Trump has actually failed them and just hasn’t had enough cooperation from The Establishment or whatever. You know, Communism’s never really been tried and all that. Instead of revolution, if I had to bet, I’d go with a real-live alt-right guy without even a mask under that scenario. And not the baptized kind that some… Read more »
Police Calm Millennial Protesters By Handing Out Participation Trophies
LOL! Gotta love that picture.
http://babylonbee.com/news/police-calm-millennial-protesters-handing-participation-trophies/
Are you tired yet of everyone telling you What It All Means? Read this for a bit of sobriety: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/
What it means is: Federal electoral politics are almost entirely about tribal warfare and “issues” are secondary.
for this election, I propose a toast to the late Phyllis Schafley. She would be very happy with Tuesday’s results.
She did comment on it before she died. She was very pro-Trump.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/10/phyllis-schlafly-makes-the-case-for-president-trump/
Yep, and it caused her a lot of trouble and grief, too. Nice to someone stay firm in their convictions until the end.
Boy wonder Justin Trudeau just issued a statement offering to renegotiate NAFTA.
Wow, that didn’t take long.
As I said before, it’s just a game, y’all.
https://twitter.com/justinjm1/status/796778129570365441
P.S. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thefederalist23/why_are_republican_lies_bad_but_democrat_lies_okay_33/#comment-2930949432
It was. It doesn’t have to stay that way.
Trump hasn’t yet built his own organisation to take on everyone in power who opposed him. Going through the motions costs him nothing at this stage and may help build legitimacy.
(The corollary is that either Trump builds his own corps to take on these enemies or he compromises with them. Remains to be seen which it’ll be.)
Um, did you see the tweet?
That’s (one reason) why I didn’t vote for Trump. I remember what happened to Obama when he nominated Clinton for SoS: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thefederalist23/why_are_republican_lies_bad_but_democrat_lies_okay_33/#comment-2930949432
Trump’s acceptance speech would have cost him the nomination if he’d given it before the primary.
Yes, I saw the tweet. What did you want him to do?
Yes, I saw the tweet. What did you want him to do? What he should have done is been honest about Obama from the beginning. And yes, that would have cost him the election, but it would have saved his integrity (at least on that point). What would have happened if he and Obama had met together and shook hands at a rally in April? He could also have remained consistent if he had really treated Obama today like he was the founder of ISIS, but that would be compounding a lie. At this point he needs to come clean… Read more »
I agree it’s not emotionally satisfying. But I’m not convinced it’s good strategy, and I don’t think this is the first time Trump has shaken hands with people he’s been in conflict with.
In short, I don’t believe this means they’re bros now. We’ll see.
It’s absolutely terrible strategy if your goal is winning. He and Obama have proved it. That’s the problem – we complain about politicians breaking their promises, but an honest politician would never win. You ever say the words “President Ron Paul”? Me neither.
Makes you wonder if this whole voting thing is such a great idea, doesn’t it?
ashv wrote:
Not when I consider the alternatives that ashv has offered.
Yeah, he also went from Lock Her Up to “great respect” overnight.
We are transitioning from Community Organizer in Chief, to Luxury Auto Salesman in Chief (and by auto salesman, I mean self-salesman, not auto-mobile). Luxury Self-Promoter in Chief.
Trump has not made billions(?) of dollars by being himself. He is a salesman and becomes whatever he needs to be. Principle often gets in the way of closing the deal. So he lives in the moment, and says what needs to be said in the moment. He can refuse to shake Hillary’s hand one day, and then shake Obama’s the next. Or he can be found playing a round of golf with Clinton, or having fun at the party. It’s not like we didn’t know what Trump is. This shouldn’t be a shock to anyone who was paying the… Read more »
I agree. Trump being dishonest is Trump being Trump. Nobody should be surprised. I sure wasn’t.
But the vote was for change, and being a lyin-through-the-teeth politician, Trump looks like a veteran establishment RINO.
What upsets me is 1. honesty seems to be an a priori disqualifier for a person to be elected President and 2. nobody seems much bothered by #1.
As I said earlier, Trump’s acceptance speech would have cost him the nomination. Something is deeply wrong with the system when that reality is baked in to the process.
Another thought: Warfare requires deception. If Trump is up front about what he plans to do with the people and organisations that opposed him within USG then he won’t be as effective. So, I expect Trump is lying to someone. In six months or so, we’ll have a better idea of whom.
Well, I’ve always expected Trump was lying to someone, so I won’t be the one disappointed if you’re right.
There were many helpful points here, but I don’t think you take seriously enough the “race” motivation that was in play. To dismiss this is not dealing in reality. For instance, just yesterday, a friend’s children (who happen to be African American) were met with awful racial hatred along side Trump campaig slogans in their bathroom at a school in the Minneapolis area: http://www.startribune.com/maple-grove-students-principal-combat-racist-graffiti-with-messages-of-love/400703701/ I think there is enough smoke around this whole thing as it relates to race that you are not being fair to the realities that currently exist with racial tension and the sort of things that… Read more »
Pretty great, isn’t it? The kids are all right.
shocking you’d say that about those awful public school kids : )
Do you think anyone in Minnesota hated Africans before they were invaded by Somalia?
Wanting invaders to leave is a normal and healthy thing.
I don’t think it’s that, necessarily, at least not among school children. My daughter’s schools could not have been more multi-racial and ethnically diverse, and it was rare to encounter real animosity based on race.
School children have been unkind to each other from time immemorial, and any weapon will do when it comes to sticking it to the underdog. If it weren’t Trump slogans, it would be something else.
But, I will say, this thread reminds me of the fruit of Doug Wilson….and why I attempt to stay away as much as possible…
May you pursue Christ, enjoy Him, and find that your joy is not in this sort of racial hatred…but that perfect love casts out fear!
For His glory…
I do not think you will find me enjoying racial hatred. If I found myself indulging in racial hatred, I would see my priest for confession and absolution. But thank you for the kind thoughts.
“Sure you falsely accused him of needing to be reined in and not listening to anybody. There is no evidence that this is the case. ” Ryan You say one thing in one post and do that which you chastise others for doing in another post. You do it so often that my eyes cross trying to read your posts. Ryan, you need to be careful with your confused comments because Wilson doesn’t teach, preach or condone racism. That isnyour thought not his and not the thoughts of regular readers. You should stop pushing your off base, social justice confused… Read more »
And some other dude comes here, reads him some Sather and says, “Ha! See there the fruit of Doug Wilson’s ministry.”
Especially since the people ryan wants to judge Doug by are the ones who never miss a chance to tell Doug he’s falling off the ethnocentrist bandwagon.
boy, our churches have helped these refugees move into our community. our family has been involved in an incredible ministry called Arrive. We see refugees coming into our community as an incredible gospel and God ordained opportunity to spread the supremacy of Christ in all things for the joy of all peoples. By in large the Somali people are a wonderful addition to our community here in the Twin Cities.
Yes. Your churches are responsible for destroying the heritage they received from their fathers and God will judge them accordingly.
God will judge them for what, exactly? What heritage? Racial purity?
Ethnic diversity destroys social cohesion.
The British Royal Family may be able to test that for themselves. Prince Harry’s girlfriend, the American actress Meghan Markle, is biracial. She has an Irish dad and a black mother. Someone will have to break this gently to 40 Acres.
It’s not news that the Hanoverians are degenerate.
ashv wrote:
Genetically degenerate? Ashv is sounding more like a eugenicist as time goes on. Does he suppose that his own bloodline is not degenerate or tainted? What standard of genetic purity is he using? Was Christ’s bloodline degenerate, or is righteousness not to be correlated with DNA sequence?
Oh katecho.
Never change.
There is that.
ashv wrote:
This is only true if one’s society is based on ethnic identity over Christian identity. Our identity in Christ is paramount over ethnic identity, which is why ethnic diversity is not a threat to a Christ oriented society. Christ has broken down the wall of separation, and He calls all tribes, tongues, and ethnoi to a greater identity.
Social cohesion does depend on shared identity, but ashv is simply in error, Scripturally, to suppose that it must be a shared ethnic identity. Ashv’s attempt to prioritize ethnic identity is to be rejected.
Not every person is, and not every people are, Christian. Culture matters.
Ashv’s problem — as with the leftists — is that he ties culture too closely to ethnicity.
At the same time, I seriously doubt that you (nor many of the other comfortable whites who comment here) actually live amongst or around blacks. I do, and have for most of my life. My neighborhood is in the process of being destroyed by “Section 8” blacks and “white trash” whites; if I live another 20 years, I expect that my house will be the only one standing for blocks around.
Lack of charity? Pursuing blind folly from a position of authority? Sacrificing the lives and livelihoods of those in their care for the idol of globalism?
Got it in one, Katecho. God is really mad at me because my church looks like Ellis Island.
I doubt I have to work very hard to point out that Minneapolis and Los Angeles have many differences. :)
Very true. And a hundred years ago Los Angeles was predominantly a WASP community. The Catholics and the coloreds and the Jews knew their place. Times change, and demographics change. Was my father really ecstatic when every new neighbor on his street came from Hong Kong and the traffic signs started appearing in Cantonese? Not really, but he didn’t think he was being deprived of his birthright. He coped. He dealt with it. He made friends with a bunch of them. That’s what we’re supposed to do.
Ashv, is there any real reason why an American child should have an expectation of growing up in an all-white society? Is there some secret part of the American birthright that says nobody should have to share his neighborhood or city or state with immigrants legally admitted to this country? If you are arguing that Minnesotans didn’t hate Africans before they met any, I don’t think that makes a strong case for their being a tolerant people.
Sounds backwards to me. I would ask instead, is there any reason why a white society must be invaded by Muslim Africans?
That the government of your country admitted these people as legal immigrants? That there is nothing in our immigration codes that bans non-Christians from coming to live here? If the Somalis were black Christians, would you find them equally objectionable as immigrants?
If they were Christians I’d certainly want to have a different conversation. But they aren’t.
Do you really think making something legal makes it right?
No, of course not. My point is that the Somalis are here. They are here legally, and in the course of time, they will be citizens. Obviously, they have to live somewhere. You speak of them as invaders. I can see your being angry with the government which admitted them. But why are you angry with the Somalis? I imagine you are aware of conditions in their home country. Do you really think they should have said, on being admitted here, “Oh gee, some Americans don’t like black people, we’d better go back home and get killed. Like, otherwise we’re… Read more »
They’re here legally today. There’s no reason that can’t (or shouldn’t) change.
I’m not angry with Somalis. As I’ve repeated several times — I don’t hate non-whites. I hate people like Ryan Sather.
ashv wrote:
Ashv had his chance to have a different conversation back when we were discussing hispanic immigration (legal and otherwise). Unfortunately, in that conversation (as in this one), his ethnic identity trumped his common Christian identity.
Of course. Because the great commission is “Go forth and make all nations American”.
Well, it *is* a fact that “hispanics” have a culture alien to ours, one in which bribery and corruption are accepted.
Ilion said:
If you think bribery and corruption are alien to our culture, you need to emerge from under your rock.
Heck, even the Republicans came this close to nominating a non-natural born citizen, right?
What is *with* you people, that you *will not* speak truth?
??
I’m not going to hold your hand. I write in clear, precise English.
LOOK at what I wrote, and then LOOK at what you wrote.
The government never asked *us* if we want to be replaced.
Yeah, I’d say this is pretty shocking, Ryan:
https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/watch-black-mob-viciously-beats-white-trump-voter-full-video
Of course, you never bring up actual violence like this, just painted swastikas and things where no one is actually hurt. And while I certainly don’t condone vandalism, we really don’t know who’s responsible. In many cases, it’s simply attention-seekers or Leftists trying to make their foes look bad. That’s happened in some cases with vandalized black churches.
I was wondering when you would drop in again!
I try to stay away…i know how much you all appreciate that…but I had to comment on this one ; )
I’ve been a bit out of the loop on Trump-and-racism. What specific racist things has he said?
I think it’s not so much anything he said, so much as the fact that so long as he’s drawing breath *they* can imagine-and-hope (*) that he may use that breath to say something “racist”.
(*) and thus, in their upside-down moral universe, *claim* that he did
Maybe, I’m still waiting for a reply. It’s an honest question. I’m no Trump fan — I voted for Darrell Castle.
You’ll never get a reply, because the accusation isn’t about seeing (much less speaking) the truth … you know, much like your comment to me below about bribery and corruption.
In spite of ashv showing up to confirm everything Sather assumes about the election of Trump, the racist narrative has already run its course and wasn’t convincing. Contrary to Sather, and NPR, Trump didn’t demonstrate anything about race relations in America. Trump did better with blacks and hispanics than Romney did. Sather needs to explain that. Similarly, there was no white groundswell for Trump, as he performed nearly the same as Romney among whites. So what was the difference? The difference was entirely in Hillary’s performance. She didn’t get the black vote she was supposed to get (let alone the… Read more »
I agree with you, the issue of race has not changed. It was bad with Romney as well. But I do think Trump’s campaign has emboldened it–meaning more comfortable to express it outrightly/publically. But I don’t think there is “more of it” …I think there’s always been “too much”.
Sather’s narrative is increasingly desperate. It’s like watching a global warming doomist try to explain snowfall in Tehran, Iran. If racism was bad with Romney as well, then why did Romney lose to Obama in that election? Wouldn’t this instead suggest that whites were more prepared to accept a black president than ever before in U.S. history? The white racist narrative doesn’t work to explain that election, or the latest one. A significant difference between Romney’s failed campaign and this one is that blacks did not show up for Hillary as they had for Obama. Is Sather accusing black people… Read more »
I know nuance is difficult for you but I did not say race was the primary factor in Trump being elected I actually agree with you I don’t think it was. In my post I said Wilson made many good arguments and points. My only concern, I do think racial hate was a factor in some votes and in the emboldening of those who hold these views. I think it is foolish to dismiss that given the propensity of the human heart to hate. You can continue to dismiss me and act as if I am saying things I have… Read more »
Sather wrote:
Is Sather referring to the Black Lives Matter movement?
If not racism, racism’s cousin nativism was at the least the catalyst that got Trump’s campaign moving in the first place.
What got Trump’s campaign moving was not his racial stereotypes and gaffes. That’s just the media spin. As a salesman, and in his own clumsy clownish way, Trump was attempting to connect with middle class people who have been personally affected by the loss of higher paying jobs through bad trade deals and foreign competition. Trump’s appeal was to the idea that foreign interests are eating the pie that should go to domestic interests. Trump was attempting to address a felt need among the populace, regardless of their ethnicity. He mucked it up with racial and sexist gaffes, but we… Read more »
There are degrees. It doesn’t have to be ethno-nationalism al la Barnabas and ashv, to be what I’m talking about and I doubt most Trump supporters are that philosophical about it. For some the “illegal” aspect of illegal immigration is the matter, and that is reasonable, for others it is simply the fact that “they” are here. No, nativism alone doesn’t account for the finish, but it does primarily account the start.
Just keep calling us racist!
And wait and see what happens in 2020!
No, this time I called you nativist. Pay attention.
And we still don’t care. You leftists need to realize that your boo-words don’t scare anyone anymore (but, thankfully for us, you won’t and you’ll double-down)
Says the guy who slings around boo-words like “leftist”. I never realized words scared you in the first place.
Oh, you poor, misunderstood thing!
You ought to understand by now that I don’t give a damn about what fools or leftists (to the extent that there is a difference) say. I *mock* you people, which is a very different thing from taking you seriously.
Bothering to respond to what I say doesn’t exactly convey not giving a damn, but that’s okay, keep it up, it’s fun. I hadn’t paid much attention to you before, but I’ve read your interaction with people of fairly diverse opinions in this thread. I’m sorry, whoever represents the future I think it’s turning to be not you. It seems for good or for ill we are headed for some variety of rather more collectivist – by your lights anyway – future.
I read a report about the 30% of Hispanics who voted for Trump. A factor that played against Hillary is that many Hispanics have personally experienced, or have heard about it from those who have, the stifling effect of corrupt government. Her being seen as personally corrupt, or as one who is wiling to enrich herself improperly, or as someone who holds herself above the law, really lost her those votes. I read early last year that Hillary would have a hard time getting even hard-core black democrats to get out and vote. She could not generate the kind of… Read more »
Yet somehow this is supposed to represent a white racist groundswell for Trump? Sather needs to take off his race colored glasses. There are other stories and perspectives in the world.
Even if there had been “a white racist groundswell for Trump”, so what? Goose, gander.
I don’t say “so what”. Race shouldn’t have anything to do with qualifications or consideration for elected office. Period.
My point was that there was apparently more of a black groundswell for Obama than there was a white groundswell for Trump, and this is a glaring problem for Sather’s pathetic white racism narrative.
The only way to kill the “pathetic white racism narrative” (and all their other narratives) of the leftists is to say and mean “So what?”
No matter what accusations the leftists fling about, and no matter about whom, if we wish to rescue our liberty, the only rational response is, “So what?”
And, by the way, your point there is what my “goose, gander” was about.
That means killing the white racism narrative at the cost of indicating that we agree with opposite evil attitudes. What one might call a Pyrrhic victory.
Let me say this slowly, because you seem to be declining to get the point —
Noooo,
It “means killing the white racism narrative” by refusing to play the game.
I get what you think it accomplishes.
I think you ignore the fact that when you say that the sky is orange, people might just believe that you think that the sky is orange, and they might even believe that it is, even if your real aim is to ensure that people know it’s not pink.
We don’t have an option to use lies about reality to defeat other lies about reality — it’s forbidden, and it doesn’t work in the long run. And that it doesn’t matter if people vote on the basis of racial spite is a lie.
And you are ignoring the truth that when those who wish to silence (and ultimately destroy) you falsely accuse you of having said that the sky is orange, you got absolutely no where by objecting that you said noting of the sort — they already know that you said nothing of the sort, but if they can “get inside your mind” and get you to always be on the defense against clear lies, then they are free to advance their agenda without real opposition. Look, as much as I despise the so-called “alt-right”, I can see with my own eyes… Read more »
“So what” is generally taken as “that doesn’t matter.” As a response to objections to racially motivated voting, it thereby carries the significance “it doesn’t matter if voting is racially motivated.” “It doesn’t matter if voting is racially motivated” carries the equivalent truth value of “the sky is orange.”
I’m not trying to silence anybody. I’m trying to agree with katecho that answering lies (the voting was wrongly racially motivated) with lies (it doesn’t matter if voting was racially motivated) doesn’t forward the truth.
I understand your point about “so what.” It reminds me of pointless arguments with young people of my acquaintance when, in despair, I find myself saying “Whatever” to every fresh assault. “Your generation has destroyed the environment!” “Whatever.” In other words, leave me alone, I am done arguing. But I think it is not a good response for public discourse if it suggests endorsement of a morally wrong position. “Nothing I say will change your mind and no evidence I present will be honestly evaluated, so I am not engaging on this subject” takes a lot longer to say but… Read more »
Exactly. Sometimes individuals need to met with a shrug. But with a tactic of what “we” should do in order to send a message to “them” in some public discourse sense, it sends an untruthful message.
I disagree that the only way to kill a lie is to say “so what?”
I disagree that it is even the most effective way to deal with lies.
A more effective way is to say something like, “I reject your false narrative”, and mean it.
Oh, good night! You’re telling me how “wrong” I am by agreeing how right I am.
“So what?”, is not grammatically or logically equivalent to, “I reject your false narrative”.
If someone accused Ilion of murdering his children, Ilion isn’t going to respond by saying, “so what?”
(I have successfully resisted the juicy temptation to respond to Ilion’s contrarian prickliness with a simple, “so what?”)
here’s your racism…. (scroll down to the parts from New Orleans).
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/trump-protests-intensify-as-doubts-swirl-about-spontaneity.html
Interestingly, folks like Sather, Moore, Piper etc never seemed at all interested in hearing and validating the genuine fears that many, Trump supporters and #NeverTrumpers alike, had about terrorists coming to our country disguised as immigrants or refugees.
“I don’t think you take seriously enough the “race” motivation that was in play. To dismiss this is not dealing in reality. For instance, just yesterday, a friend’s children (who happen to be African American) were met with awful racial hatred along side Trump campaign slogans in their bathroom at a school in the Minneapolis area.” Not to dismiss the possibility that supporters of Trump could be capable of misconduct; but from the Minneapolis Star and Sickle article you provided is the following quote: “The district and Maple Grove police have launched an investigation to determine who wrote the graffiti.”… Read more »
Is there anybody Thabiti listens to? Someone needs to rein that guy in.
I’m thankful he listens to the Bible, sound doctrine, the saints, and is accountable as a pastor to his local church body. I pray for you, if you call yourself a follower of Christ, your attitude towards our brother Thabiti is not consistent with one who loves Jesus.
It was a sincere question caused by very real concern for the man. Would you like to demonstrate, from Scripture, how my attitude is inconsistent with the Word of God? Casting false aspersions is also false witness. Should you repent?
Sure you falsely accused him of needing to be reined in and not listening to anybody. There is no evidence that this is the case. Please show me biblical grounds that he needs to be reined in and evidence that he doesn’t listen to people and I will apologize to you. However you will need to repent if you have no ground for the statement that you made.
Your first point is a bit incoherent. You brought the issue of sin into this when you implied that I wasn’t demonstrating an attitude consistent with Christianity when I posed my original question and comment about Thabiti. I on, the other hand, never accused Thabiti of sin. I just believe he is wrong and heading in a divisive and unhelpful direction, and was wondering if anyone has his ear or if he has any direct accountability regarding the race issue and his recent comments. I’ll ask you again, if you’re so concerned with biblical obedience, will you repent of your… Read more »
In other words you are wrong but don’t want to admit it, have a great night.
Very mature and Christian of you. Next time engage with the question and don’t ascribe sin where it isn’t.
I have to speak the truth
Except you seem to have a very tenuous grasp on it.
Somebody please help me understand this… republicans have the presidency, the senate, and the house. Does that mean that so long as republicans whip up bills, we can finally change the laws in this nation unchallenged? Is this really a carte-blanche situation? I’m thinking specifically of abortion and marriage here, along with religious freedom (if I don’t want to bake that cake I don’t have to). Not trying to get my hopes up here, but it sure seems like the stars are aligned in our favor.
Some bills only require simple majorities, dems would have a hard time stopping bills in committee. That leaves the filibuster, which does suit their more talk than action style.
The low hanging fruit should be easier to legislate.
Qodesmith wrote:
Unfortunately, every one of the examples mentioned are the result of an activist Supreme Court judiciary. That will take a bit longer to correct, but there is an opening to be filled.
The problem of the activist judiciary will never be fixed … because the vast majority of the electorate will never be willing to read and grasp what the Constitution *actually* says, as opposed to the lies they were taught in high school civic class.
As see here
… and as see yourself with respect to the natural born citizen clause
America is doomed … because the vast majority of Americans *want* it to be doomed.
Elected officials are a small segment of the government. Most power is held by members of the civil service. If Trump can effectively purge the Department of Justice and the judiciary, then those things are feasible. But not without it.
This is helpful http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5823bd6be4b0334571e0a633
That article is helpful if you want to learn how to spot identity politics in action.
Unfortunately, it contains the same debunked racist narrative of the election that Sanders pretended not to be peddling earlier.
For the record, I did not vote for either Trump or Hillary, and I’m certainly not gloating about Trump’s victory. I just find the white racist narrative to be completely discredited by facts. The abortion issue was more of a factor than race.
I would agree with you that abortion was a bigger factor than race for many evangelicals. I’m simply arguing to say race wasn’t a factor for a significant % is burying your head in the sand.
How significant of a percentage? It looks like no more than 1%, given the “groundswell” of white vote that turned out for Trump over and above Romney. If he insists on seeing the world through race colored glasses, Sather would have an easier time arguing that race was a bigger factor in bringing out the black vote for Obama. Is Sather going to suggest that Hillary lost the black vote because she wasn’t black? If not, why not? We are certainly talking about a much larger swing in terms of percentage. I should also point out that several mainstream media… Read more »
I will admit some gloating not over Trump’s victory, but Hillary’s loss.
Still you look at the map and that little blue space accounted for more votes than Trump got.
None of the structural issues facing the Republican party are any different than they were last week. The Democrats jumped the gun on the demise of the white man in this election, but the trends keep rolling along.
On the short list for Secretary of State: Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Robert Corker. Don’t know much about Corker, but the other two…so much for that sledgehammer to the system. For Attorney General we’re probably looking at Giuliani, and for the Treasury we have one of Trump’s banker friends. Nothing is set in stone yet, but so far it’s looking pretty “meet the new boss…”.
Yep. Trumpers are going to be M-A-D when he doesn’t Drain the Swamp like they were expecting. Four more years of Establishment politics is not going to win him a second term with the same constituency. And whenever the Dems do get in power again, we’ll be wishing for the Obama/Pelosi/Reid years.
jigawatt wrote: Four more years of Establishment politics is not going to win him a second term with the same constituency. Jigawatt is making the mistake of using common sense. Remember what this election has just taught us. Trumpers are the very kind of constituency that is ready and eager to vote for the lesser evil again next time, and the time after that, etc, etc. So even after four more years of establishment politics, and trillions upon trillions more in debt, all Trump has to do is be slightly less evil than the other candidate and he slides right… Read more »
War. And, God willing, victory.
War? I thought ashv said he voted for Trump.
What principled basis for war is ashv sniffing at, and how does that principle depend on whether Trump or Hillary is president?
I voted for Trump, chiefly to irritate you. (He obviously would have won if I hadn’t.) The value of a Trump presidency is who it encourages and who it discourages. His leadership has created a permission structure for nativist and anti-progressive sentiments — in other words, he has legitimised once again things that have been deemed thoughtcrime over the past few decades. When two nations have conflicting goals and one of them won’t negotiate with or even talk to the other one, war comes sooner or later. This is pretty much the case with Red America and Blue America right… Read more »
I know, nativist, right? I’ve just been informed it is a boo-word. But apparently it doesn’t scare anyone anymore, so I guess we’re okay to use it without a trigger-warning.
There’s a lot of scare-words losing their effectiveness this year. Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, …
But you acknowledge nativist sentiments and Trumps’ election are connected. All to the good, you would say. The point – which I don’t need to make to you so much as to some other folks – is that I wasn’t just making it all up.
I already acknowledged that ashv and Barnabas are possible exceptions, and that they may have heard genuine ethno-nationalist fervor in each of Trump’s racial gaffes. But I don’t believe they are representative of the rest of the population (white or not) who looked past Trump’s incompetent delivery and heard him advocating for a priority on domestic spending over foreign spending. I suppose we can call domestic preference “nationalistic”, but it isn’t ethno-nationalistic. I’m just not persuaded that there are enough alt-white ethno-nationalists to have given Trump any sort of groundswell. That narrative was just the usual media spin. Most have… Read more »
Trump is pretty clearly a civic nationalist, but even that activates many people’s ideological immune system.
I guess this means that not even ashv took Trump’s racial comments to represent genuine ethno-nationalism. I took them to be Trump’s clumsy attempt to “keep it real” according to his perception of the under-class. Nothing more than populist rhetoric. He doesn’t appear to have any shame, so the media hyperventilation meant nothing to him anyway. For the record, I’m more of a fiscal nationalist than the globalist, interventionist, neo-cons/libs of both parties. I wouldn’t be the least disappointed if we politely dropped out of NATO or the UN, and renegotiated more equitable treaties that had more to do with… Read more »
Again, what we’ve observed, what I’m pointing out, doesn’t require an alt right worldview or conscious ethno-nationalism. We’ve seen it before in our history, more than once. I don’t know why it would be so hard for you to believe. A nativist undercurrent was there four years ago, and before. It was largely missed by people in power, in fact that’s supposed to be one of the lessons for them. Four years ago there was not Trump deliberately tapping into it. That’s the difference. I never supposed he actually cared as much as his audience did about the things he… Read more »
JohnM wrote: Again, what we’ve observed, what I’m pointing out, doesn’t require an alt right worldview or conscious ethno-nationalism. So Trump supporters are unconsciously ethno-nationalistic, and don’t realize it? That theory is a bit self-serving and patronizing to those who voted for Trump, let alone being unavailable to observation or falsification. JohnM wrote: If he hadn’t promised to build a Maginot line against demographic change we wouldn’t be talking about him now. Against demographic change? Where did Trump promise to restrain demographic change? I really don’t recall such reasoning from Trump, but I could have missed it. What I heard… Read more »
I only refer to ethno-nationalism because you keep using the term. The word I have repeatedly used is nativism, and for some reason you keep going around it. Apparently you give Trump even less credit than I do. The poor naïve fellow was only clumsy and couldn’t see how many people have made illegal immigration their front and center issue, virtually to the exclusion of all others (I was not under the impression you had) or the visceral resentment a good many people hold toward Mexican immigrants generally? Even regarding the upset over the illegal aspect of illegal immigration, which… Read more »
What sets Trump apart from conservatives is his unwillingness to denounce any of his supporters.
Among other things, that.
I think a certain level of ethno-centrism has always percolated beneath the surface here. It springs to life at sometimes resulting in immigration bans on Asians or quotas on Jewish students at universities, but then it subsides again. But I agree with you that it is bit simplistic to attribute all this to white identity politics.
For example, the Democratic party brings together black and Hispanic voters, but we tend not to recognize that their interests are sometimes antithetical. Limiting illegal immigration would probably benefit black workers much more than whites.
ashv wrote: As it is, he will not contribute to Blue America’s assaults on Red America that we’ve seen over the last decade, which will give us time to organise and prepare. Based on this comment, should we conclude that if Hillary had won, ashv would not be organizing or preparing? Again, how does ashv’s principle depend on whether Trump or Hillary is president? It seems like he is just creating mental space to have used a Hillary victory as an excuse for not preparing or organizing. If ashv wants to be honest, he will acknowledge that the evangelical record… Read more »
When I say Trump will probably give us more time, I wasn’t including you in that “us”.
ashv wrote:
It is increasingly difficult to tell who ashv represents with his comments on this blog. His primary identity doesn’t seem to be with other Christians. It seems to be primarily with a certain definition of the white race, or with the Old South, or something else.
Whatever group it is, apparently it becomes paralyzed and unable to organize or prepare itself in the presence of a Democratic administration.
Ever heard of Brendan Eich or Jason Richwine?
I’m not familiar with Richwine, but I was aware of the scapegoating of Brendan Eich.
The Contract With American Voters is quite similar to Newt’s contract which he abandoned post haste after selling it to us chumps.
Also, it will be extreme difficult to drain the swamp when the same ones who created the mess are asked to do the cleaning.
So, it is still time for American Christians to pray and for preachers to preach hard gospel lessons.
Well, as long as we are handing out pardons, let’s start with Edward Snowden. Of course, that’ll never happen with Trump. He’ll likely strengthen the NSA.
While people like Jonathan whine about Trump supporters being racists, this kind of thing happens with very little media coverage:
https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/watch-black-mob-viciously-beats-white-trump-voter-full-video
Where’s Loretta Lynch? Will Obama denounce it?
“While [racists] like Jonathan whin[inly accuse] Trump supporters [of] being racists …”
FIFY
We’re all racists now.
And we don’t care; that’s the important break-through.
I really do wonder how different the media/progressive backlash would be if the Republican winner were Ronney or Cruz or Bush … or Mr. Rogers.
Is it really about Trump or is it about not-secular progressivism?
Well, they certainly hated “W” Bush and claimed he stole the election from Gore.
I made this comment over at The Federalist about Bill Maher when he said that compared to Trump, Romney wasn’t really that bad and we progressives were too hard on him.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/08/liberals-dont-really-think-donald-trump-extreme/
Judging by Twitter in 2012, Romney was Literally Hitler too.
And let’s not forget how much they hated Sarah Palin.
I think that’s the main lesson from this election–there’s absolutely no point nominating another Romney, Dole, McCain or Bush family member. The media and Left will still malign them. Whether it’s Trump, Cruz or Ron/Rand Paul, pick someone who will take a stand.
Jiggs, it is against God and has been building for a long time.
They really do seem to be going off the deep end on this one. Sobbing into their pillows at night, it’s enough to make you happy Trump won.
Just had a great idea.
1. All Trump supporters should find the most liberal/progressive area near them.
2. Call up the local bakery.
3. Order a custom “Trump Wins” cake.
4. Bask in the irony. And wonder at how they STILL don’t get it.
But, under no circumstances should they eat such a cake, if it is actually provided to them. Wilson has already observed that liberal/progressives don’t play by the same rules.
This election was about us vs them. The details of policy and government have been secondary to that.
Fortunately the Trump fans I’ve interacted with seem to understand this was the first maneuver in a long campaign. We shouldn’t rest until the false religion of liberalism is exterminated.
Love the article. Question the use of the word, “Golly,” in your title. According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, “Golly” is a “euphemism for God.” The whole subject of whether or not euphemisms make a word acceptable is one on which people greatly disagree. I understand why many people feel better using “darn” instead of “damn” in front of children. (Personally, I do not feel the need to casually condemn people, items, or ideas to hell as part of general conversation, so I have no need for the more polite version of the word “damn.” If I ever want to employ… Read more »