From a Trump supporter at a Ted Cruz rally in Houston:

“Nationalism is the new thing, man,” said Jordan Voor, 30, a Trump supporter who works nearby and wore a longhorn belt buckle the size of a miniature football.

“I just kind of want to watch the establishment burn,” Mr. Voor added. “What’s the point of being conservative anymore? It’s a failing ideology.”

Kinda sums it up in a nutshell.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. rustybrown2014 says:

    Watson, what’s your take on this? What’s your point? In my view, I think there’s a type of ‘new nationalism’ born out of the Trump campaign that is not necessarily a bad thing.

    • 1. A good portion of Trump’s support comes from people who believe conservatism, as practiced by their elected Republican representatives, has failed. So why vote for a candidate who has been a party to that failure?

      2. A good portion of Trump’s supporters don’t much think through the consequences–they just want to throw the bastards out; that is, “let the establishment burn.”

      3. By “nationalism,” I think people like the speaker really mean white nationalism, as in white nationalists.

      4. According to a recent poll, more Trump supporters than supporters of other candidates agree that “whites are the superior race,” among other interesting findings.

      5. Trump appeals to white nationalists, such as David Duke, who the other day said a vote against Trump is “treason to your heritage.”

      6. White nationalists groups are working actively to elect trump, e.g., with robocalls that include statements such as, “We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.”

      7. Trump stokes the fears of Americans who are afraid of “others,” e.g. Mexicans or Muslims.

  2. rustybrown2014 says:

    That’s a lot to unpack, but my thought initially is that Trump is speaking to a frustrated population that is largely *gasp* white American males. Is that a horrible thing? Should we hang our heads in shame? As I pointed out in our previous conversation, I think it’s enlightening to reverse the labels and see how the same ideas fly: do we have a problem with the term “black nationalism”? Black pride? Asian pride?

    I’m more than certain you can find Black Panther types asserting their racial superiority, should I condemn all black voices because they are endorsed by those groups? I don’t think so. I think you should take every argument on it’s own merit. A nut-bag fringe group agreeing with your idea doesn’t invalidate your idea. And make no mistake about it, the media has been working overtime to paint Trump as a despicable racist, i.e. appealing to nut-bag fringe groups.

    Popular media likes to portray Tump supporters as scared, unintelligent, low-class, racist chumps. I think his appeal is far broader and speaks to what I’ve always said: It’s not about race, it’s about class and economics. The middle class has been getting fucked in this country for decades, and it has NOTHING to do with race. I firmly believe that racial animosities are stoked by the ruling class because it works to their advantage; keep the rabble talking about racial differences and grievances and nobody will notice all the jobs shipped off oversees. It’ll be ironic to see a megalomaniac billionaire shed light on that issue. And as I said before, it will be the screeching, overreaching far-leftists (regressive left) that will elect a Donald Trump. Do you think Trump would put up for any of this racist bulllshit?:

    http://www.salon.com/2016/02/25/im_not_a_superpredator_hillary_black_lives_matter_protestors_crash_clinton_south_carolina_fundraiser/

  3. Do you think Trump would put up for any of this racist bulllshit?

    You don’t have to ask me what I think about that. We already know what Trump does. He is a bully who uses his goons to forcibly remove protesters while his followers yell, “light that motherfucker on fire!” Not a pretty picture. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/politics/donald-trump-protesters-las-vegas/

    That’s a lot to unpack, but my thought initially is that Trump is speaking to a frustrated population that is largely *gasp* white American males. Is that a horrible thing? Should we hang our heads in shame? As I pointed out in our previous conversation, I think it’s enlightening to reverse the labels and see how the same ideas fly: do we have a problem with the term “black nationalism”? Black pride? Asian pride?

    Without any other context, there is nothing wrong with a white person having pride in his ethnicity. But of course, context and history does matter, at least to me. I see a significant difference between those fighting in the past to have the same civil rights as, say, white people, versus the kind of white nationalism that feels put upon because non-whites are now partaking in the fruits of society, sociologically, politically and economically. Yes, the latter might feeling they’re now “getting fucked in this country for decades”–kind of like the way non-whites have felt in this country for 200 years.

    I don’t doubt that there are middle class people who also feel that way without any racial animus whatsoever. But the other group exists as well. And when I hear someone proclaiming white nationalism, I think they’re more likely to belong to the other group.

    • rustybrown2014 says:

      Again Watson, to reiterate the same point I’ve made before, you’re going to tar Trump with the actions of his most vehement, perhaps unhinged supporters? Did Trump ask for someone to be put on fire? Stop slurping the media narrative. If I present a video of an obnoxious Clinton supporter would that be your idea of advancing of a meaningful dialog? Grow up. My point is that the puerile, racist bullshit on display there would not fly in a Trump rally, and that’s a good thing.

      You decry, “the kind of white nationalism that feels put upon because non-whites are now partaking in the fruits of society”.

      Can you give me an example of that? Whites at large being angry that blacks have access to the middle class? I mean outside of fringe, KKK-like websites? Because from my experience whites are bending over backwards to accommodate and welcome minorities and “underrepresented peoples” (citations available on request), while privileged minorities are shitting over the venerable institutions that have had the foresight and goodwill to welcome them to their institutions (citations available on request).

  4. rustybrown2014 says:

    Casper,

    Saw your comment at b4v, do you really think Trump is worse than Cruz, Rubio, Carson? Does anybody?

    • So tell us, Rusty, what is it that you like so much about The Donald? Or is it that you despise even more about Cruz, Rubio and Carson?

      Meanwhile, Trump seemed to have trouble on Sunday disavowing both the KKK and David Duke, even lying that he didn’t know who David Duke is when it is very easy to find clips of Trump disavowing Duke. Brain fart? Possibly. But this blatant lying business _does_ seem to be a pattern for him.

      And as for Trump “confronting” a protester wearing a KKK shirt last week, I match your link with one of my own! 🙂

      “In Iowa, students chant ‘Trump! Trump!’ after basketball loss to more racially diverse high school”
      http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-trump-chant-20160226-story.html

      Nothing to see. Move along.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        The modest appeal I see in Trump are outlined in my comments in this thread and last, I really have nothing more to add as I’m not a great booster of his. But compared to Rubio, Carson, Cruz he’s clearly a better choice. The main thing is they’re FAR-right Republicans and true believers of all the odious policies that necessitates. As I’ve already said, I think Trump is basically a moderate who’s play-acting as a knuckle-dragging conservative to get the nomination. He’s basically defending Planned parenthood, believes in progressive taxation, truly seems interested in addressing our trade problems and his Supreme Court picks are quite likely to be better (let’s put it this way; they can’t be worse). Another huge difference is that he’s not a religious nutcase like the others, so it’s unlikely we’d have to worry about a Trump presidency getting it’s morals and marching orders from an imaginary being. In fact, I think it’s quite likely he’s an agnostic or atheist.

        By the clip you posted it’s obvious you’re still very keen to smear Trump with the behavior of people he has nothing to do with; in this case, a bunch of dopy high school kids who don’t/can’t even vote fer Chrissakes. Whatever floats your boat, but I really miss your point.

        Yes, the Duke thing is unfortunate. Could be a brain fart, who knows? But at least he denounced him later in the day. I would have preferred it sooner.

      • By the clip you posted it’s obvious you’re still very keen to smear Trump with the behavior of people he has nothing to do with; in this case, a bunch of dopy high school kids who don’t/can’t even vote fer Chrissakes. Whatever floats your boat, but I really miss your point.

        I was trolling you just a bit, Rusty. Hey, we can both play the “what do you think about that link?” game. 🙂 But Trump does seem to appeal to xenophobic white Americans. Do you actually disagree with that? I mean, white nationalist organizations are actively working on his behalf. And I get it that Trump eventually disavowed the American National Super PAC, for example, but only in name only, as he doesn’t disavow the anger and resentment festering behind groups like that. In fact, he stokes it.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        “But Trump does seem to appeal to xenophobic white Americans. Do you actually disagree with that?”

        No, not at all. But I’ve been trying to point out to you that a candidate shouldn’t be tarred by every group that endorses him. Perhaps I’m not speaking clearly enough. Furthermore, “xenophobic” is a loaded term. I think there are plenty of good reasons for white Americans to want this country to be a bit more insular these days. There are good reasons for people to be concerned about mass immigration, jobs disappearing overseas, and the threat of Islamism. And yes, there are good reasons for white Americans to be concerned about their culture, or at least their place in it, in light of all of the ridiculously racist platforms of the BLM movement and other factually-challenged social justice warriors. It would be nice to watch the Oscars and not be bombarded with demands for racial quotas overshadowing what’s supposed to be a lighthearted entertainment event. White people are sick of being told they should feel guilty for the color of their skin. Is Trump stoking that attitude? You bet he is, and he’s smart to do it.

      • Of course, people of color probably think it would be nice to watch the Oscars and not be bombarded with demands for racial quotas, too. I get that white people, put upon ever since they were brought here as indentured servants, have had a tough road in America. (I’m trolling you, Rusty.) But there’s an ugly element to Trump that goes beyond the concerns of average Americans. If he can’t even unequivocally denounce the KKK without doing “research,” then we have a problem. Even if he disavows the KKK later, he’s signaling a certain, let’s say, understanding of the most extreme white nationalists in America.

    • casper3031 says:

      Yes , I do believe he is the worst ever, although Cruz and Rubio aren’t far behind.

      • All four of them–Trump, Rubio, Cruz and Carson–are just terrible candidates, in my opinion. Carson is a non-starter. I agree with Rusty that Trump actually does have some moderate views that Rubio and Cruz would never adopt, so there’s that.

  5. casper3031 says:

    Watson, I get Trump’s appeal. I really do. Yes he has some moderate views, but his whole campaign is built on hate and fear, I have no problem with someone being proud of his heritage. I’m very proud of mine. I don’t need to attack others to make myself look goo and that’s what Trump does.

  6. rustybrown2014 says:

    “I get that white people, put upon ever since they were brought here as indentured servants, have had a tough road in America. (I’m trolling you, Rusty.)?”

    Yes Watson, and I get that modern blacks in America, most of whom are not the ancestors of slaves, can’t blame all of their personal deficiencies on history and white people. Glad we’re on the same page. The only difference here is that whites don’t whine about shit that happened to strangers who kind of looked like them hundreds of years ago, and they’re better off for it.

    “he can’t even unequivocally denounce the KKK without doing “research,” then we have a problem”

    That’s not fair. Believe him or disbelieve him, the issue was that he said at the time he didn’t know who Duke was. After claiming that several times the interviewer threw out the term KKK once at the end. Now, maybe Trump didn’t hear it or maybe he was still just focused on this Duke fellow whom he didn’t know and didn’t want to dignify the suggestion Duke was a part of the Klan. I don’t know and neither do you. The important thing is that this should be the most talked about issue in all media outlets for days to come because God knows there’s nothing else more vital happening in the world to discuss (/sarc).

    So Casper prefers Carson or Cruz over Trump. Wow.

    • The moderator, Jake Tapper, specifically mentioned the KKK three times. How many times does Trump need? Furthermore, Trump lied about not knowing who David Duke is. So yeah, I guess I don’t believe him. At the outset, Tapper identified David Duke as a former grand wizard of the KKK. He pointed out that he said a vote against Trump would be “treason to your heritage.” Tapper then specifically mentioned the KKK two more times, and even then, Trump said he would have to do research. Virtually no public figure in America needs to do research to know what the KKK is, including Trump.

      Yes Watson, and I get that modern blacks in America, most of whom are not the ancestors of slaves, can’t blame all of their personal deficiencies on history and white people. Glad we’re on the same page. The only difference here is that whites don’t whine about shit that happened to strangers who kind of looked like them hundreds of years ago, and they’re better off for it.

      Well, first of all, a black person doesn’t have to be a descendant of a slave in order to have experienced systemic racism and disenfranchisement directly, or have relatives who did. I mean, Jim Crow lasted well into the second half of the twentieth century, and other racially-based practices lasted longer than that. But I’m curious if you can cite statistics about the number of blacks descended from slaves vs. not. According to wikipedia, “Most African Americans are of West and Central African descent and are descendants of enslaved blacks within the boundaries of the present United States.” I’m not claiming wikipedia is the last word in this matter, but the statement is backed by two sources.

      Second, whites in general seemed quite happy for generations to enjoy an advantaged position in American society that was denied to blacks. And third, whites only whine when their systemic advantages, enjoyed at the expense of non-whites, are threatened. (Well, whites also whine when non-whites merely ask the question, how about a level playing field?)

      Anyways, like I said earlier, we can continue like this forever. I highly doubt you and I will ever come to a meeting place on this.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Look, I already said the Duke thing was not good. Could have been a brain fart. Probably wasn’t but could have been. The important thing is he has since (and previously) disavowed him. Move on. The Clintons pocket millions from the financial industry and Hillary currently gives speeches at Goldman Sachs for over $600,000 and their policies reflect that; are all your sensitive panties in a twist over that? Ooooo, but nothing’s worse than appearing racist, is there?

        Yeah, blacks really have it tough in America today. Maybe you could explain to us the multitude of ways the playing field is so uneven. Watson, I’m afraid I find your tenuous grasp of history, race, and class tiresome. We’ve been over this ground before and I’ve explained that this is much more of a class issue than a racial one, I’ve explained how millions and millions of poor whites have been similarly “disenfranchised” (not to mention Asians and other ethnic groups) and yet don’t seem to be as stunted and malcontent as the black community, but no facts seem capable of penetrating your baked enamel veneer of black complaint and white guilt. Your description of “whites” as some monolithic oppressor group is juvenile and demonstrably absurd. But have fun mining past centuries for inequalities and injustices. Just don’t forget to ignore those suffered by anyone with skin paler than Obama (especially the really pale ones, wink, wink), they will throw off your narrative, and that would interfere with The Great Perpetual Grievance Machine.

      • Watson, I’m afraid I find your tenuous grasp of history, race, and class tiresome.

        Likewise, I would say the same of you. Hence, there is not going to be any common ground.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        I can lead a horse to water but I can’t make it think.

      • Right, Rusty. Anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t think. Glad we cleared that up.

      • Another bunch of dumb, thoughtless people succumbing to The Great Perpetual Grievance Machine. They claim to be Republicans, but they’re probably secret, misguided progressives, who are even worse. Regardless, obviously they are incapable of thought.

        More specifically, here’s what they don’t like:

        They think he’s a racist, or panders to racists.

        You’d be surprised to hear it, if you just read liberal columnists talking about how the Republican Party is all white identity politics and pandering to rich people, but this showed up over … and over … and over. Libertarians complained about it. Evangelicals complained about it. Born-and-bred Southern Republicans complained about it. People who said they favored much tighter immigration restrictions complained about it. And at least half of these e-mails were written before he went on Jake Tapper’s show and refused to disavow David Duke and the KKK.

        “I am a loyal party man, but I will not be taken hostage by a racist xenophobe. If it comes down to Trump vs. Clinton I will vote my conscience.”

        “Trump’s embrace of identity politics is a betrayal of a party that stood for judging individuals on the basis of their merit.”

        “He has mocked a great war hero like John McCain as well as those with a physical handicap. He is also a racist that brings out the worst in people. David Duke the former grand wizard of the KKK has endorsed him and white supremacist supporters are making robo-calls that are extremely racist. … We need a leader that will unite us not one that brings out the worst elements of our society. The brave men and women of this country fought the Nazis during WW II to protect our rights and now there are those that are ready to back a man who is akin to Hitler himself.”

        “My grandfather and great-grandfather were white Republicans in Alabama in an era when that simple fact would get the Klan on your lawn. They despised George Wallace. I see more than a little of old Jumpin’ George (as we called him when I was in grade school), and his remarkable ability to pander to the lowest common denominator, in Trump.”

        The Die-Hard Republicans Who Say #NeverTrump
        http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-29/the-die-hard-republicans-who-say-nevertrump

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Now you’re quoting an article by the risible Megan McArdle to support your views. By uncritically accepting the negative media narrative you’ve also staked out some common ground with Amazona (see, this smearing by association works both ways. I don’t see much point in it but it seems to be a game you’re fond of). Sure is a weird election cycle.

        In any event, that articles premise is discredited by the observable fact of the Trump juggernaut. It would appear that for every Republican defector there are a dozen new boosters coming out of the woodwork in support of Trump and his populist message. This is in part due to what I wrote about a few months ago; a middle class backlash to the racist identity politics of the regressive left. You present an article by a right wing hack; I present the numbers.

      • Rusty, yes the article is written by Megan McArdle, in which she was quoting the email she received about Trump. That is, the part that I reproduced here is almost entirely the words of her presumably conservative readers, not McArdle’s, the point being that a lot of them recognize racist appeals when they see it. That said, you really don’t have much of a leg to stand on as far as criticizing sources that one quotes.

      • Oh, forgot this part: I present the numbers.

        What numbers would those be? Perhaps they’re here and I either failed to notice or have already forgotten. Either could be possible given my lack of cognitive skills. I do recall asking if you could substantiate your claim that most blacks in American are not descended from slaves, but I don’t recall you responding. In any event, I’m surprised that you still find me worthy of addressing. And comparing me to Amazona? Oh, that hurts.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Watson, McArdle was quoting alleged emails from third parties. Personally, I wouldn’t trust her journalistic integrity. But anyway, my point really was what kooky alliances this election is fostering–you finding cause with McArdle and Amazona, me with Donald figgin’ Trump.

        “you really don’t have much of a leg to stand on as far as criticizing sources that one quotes”

        What do you mean by that? Are you referring to the ‘Religion of Peace’ website I quoted from a while back? If so, you’re being disingenuous. We’ve been through all this before (sigh), but I’ll remind you AGAIN that I have no love for that website nor many of its views. I was merely using it because it contained a comprehensive collection of repugnant quotes from the Quaran which supported my contention that Islam has fundamental, textual problems. Those quotes were accurate and you offered no rebuttal to the CONTENT, via that website, I was presenting. Did you forget all of that or do you just like scoring cheap points? You really are big on the guilt by association tactic; you use it in almost every one of your posts, go back and check. Big fan of McCarthy, are you? Can you present an argument without it?

        As to the numbers, the ones I’m referring to are the avalanche of Trump votes. I expected you to infer that from my preceding sentences: “In any event, that articles premise is discredited by the observable fact of the Trump juggernaut. It would appear that for every Republican defector there are a dozen new boosters coming out of the woodwork in support of Trump and his populist message.”

        My point is that you’re crowing about Trump scaring away Republicans while the objective numerical facts say otherwise: Trump is steadily building a wide base of support. Sorry.

        Haven’t looked much into slave decedent thing. Doesn’t really matter; none of my arguments are contingent on that issue. My point, if you’ll recall, was “modern blacks in America, most of whom are not the ancestors of slaves, can’t blame all of their personal deficiencies on history and white people”. Now, being a descendant of an American slave doesn’t really negatively impact a modern day black person as compared to say, being a recent black immigrant from Somali. In fact, the descendants might consider themselves somewhat lucky. Do you think they would be better off if their ancestors were never brought over from Africa?

      • Watson, McArdle was quoting alleged emails from third parties. Personally, I wouldn’t trust her journalistic integrity.

        And what do you base this on, Rusty? I don’t follow McArdle closely. Does she have a history of fabricating stories? Can you document that? Or are you just making it up as you go? The Religion of Peace website is not the only unsavory source you have lifted from, but given the great offense you took when I pointed out the nature of that website, it is quite rich to see you impugning the integrity of McArdle without providing any evidence whatsoever to support your assertions.

        My point is that you’re crowing about Trump scaring away Republicans while the objective numerical facts say otherwise: Trump is steadily building a wide base of support. Sorry.

        Wrong. Trump is pandering racists and white nationalists. This is not an accidental association for which Trump bears no responsibility. And it is not treating him unfairly to point it out. It is also not guilt by associatio. He knows exactly what he is doing. It is not just deluded progressives like me (I can’t remember you exact pejorative term), but even many conservatives recognize it. You are correct that Trump has built considerable support even though some conservatives have recognized the racist appeals. I would hardly dispute that. Further, I don’t dispute that Trump’s appeal extend beyond this form of pandering.

        Haven’t looked much into slave decedent thing. Doesn’t really matter;

        Of course you haven’t. You just throw it out there and leave it at that.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        I’ve been familiar with McArdle’s work for a while now, often through sites critical of conservative media. I find her work to be extremely partisan to the point of frequently twisting the truth to make her own case. She reminds me a bit of Ama, but smarter, not so crazy, yet just as deceitful. I think McArdle’s a disingenuous ideologue and I personally wouldn’t put much stock in her claims of having “hundreds of emails” saying this or that which line up perfectly with the arguments she’s putting forth. As I stated, just my opinion. As I also said, my main point is not with her integrity but with the humor I find with you using such a biased right wing hack as a source to make your point, (I’ll leave it to you to determine whether she’s a biased right wing hack, there’s plenty of her articles online for you to peruse–maybe get back to me on that! I’d love to see you move from quoting McArdle to defending her journalistic credibility!).

        The only reason I took offense at your criticism of ROP website was because you were committing a stupid logical error in doing so, and I think stupidity is offensive. You see, McArdle’s is an opinion piece which relies on the alleged opinions of nameless others–it’s valid to dismiss opinions of people you know to be full of shit, especially when you state your dismissal is just your own opinion.

        But what I linked to on the ROP website was NOT opinion, it was literal translations of the source document we were discussing. It was FACTUAL information that was very pertinent to our conversation. See the difference there, sparky? And rather than attempt to disprove those translations you dismissed the entire source out of hand because you found other things in it yucky. That’s a big intellectual no-no. Glad THAT’S cleared up.

        “Of course you haven’t. You just throw it out there and leave it at that.”

        *Sigh* I just explained it was an offhand statement I made that has nothing to do with my central point. If you like, I’ll concede the point, even though it’s completely beside the point. Are you that desperate for a gotcha? Sorry, it’s just not there. Here’s what I said again:

        “Doesn’t really matter; none of my arguments are contingent on that issue. My point, if you’ll recall, was “modern blacks in America, most of whom are not the ancestors of slaves, can’t blame all of their personal deficiencies on history and white people”. Now, being a descendant of an American slave doesn’t really negatively impact a modern day black person as compared to say, being a recent black immigrant from Somali. In fact, the descendants might consider themselves somewhat lucky. Do you think they would be better off if their ancestors were never brought over from Africa?”

        What’s up with you guys? You can’t argue your points so you just deflect, smear and reach for gothchas. You’re getting as bad as our friends at b4v.

      • I think McArdle’s a disingenuous ideologue and I personally wouldn’t put much stock in her claims of having “hundreds of emails” saying this or that which line up perfectly with the arguments she’s putting forth.

        So then I take that to be no, you don’t have any evidence whatsoever that McArdle just made up fake emails, nor are you able to present any evidence whatsoever that McArdle has ever fabricated quotes and facts in her columns. I previously said I don’t follow McArdle closely, but that doesn’t mean that I am not familiar with her work going back to when she wrote for The Atlantic. I’ve never heard any credible claims that she lacks journalistic integrity, as you claim. Of course she has a point of view; she is a columnist, after all, not a reporter.

        By the way, did you read the entire column (to which I linked), or just the part I quoted. The basis of the column was this:

        I wanted to understand this phenomenon better. I asked on Twitter whether this was a real thing, just as the hashtag #NeverTrump began trending. And I got an earful. So I invited lifelong Republicans who had decided that they couldn’t vote for Trump in the general, even if he got the nomination, to tell me their stories. Hundreds of e-mails poured in, and are still arriving. They’re informative.

        She, a conservative columnist, invited “lifelong Republicans” to tell their stories. Gasp.

        What’s up with you guys? You can’t argue your points so you just deflect, smear and reach for gothchas. You’re getting as bad as our friends at b4v.

        Really? We haven’t deleted your comments yet. But as far as smearing and reaching, it seems you’re doing a pretty good job of it yourself.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Give it a rest Watson. Talk about reaching. Lets review the facts: I never claimed to know those emails were fake. I said they were “alleged” (that’s accurate) and that “Personally, I wouldn’t trust her journalistic integrity” based on my familiarity of her work. Do you know what “personally” means Watson? It means: “from someone’s personal standpoint or according to their particular nature; in a subjective rather than an objective way.” In other words, I was explicitly presenting my opinion, not fact. If you want defend Megan McArdle, go bananas. I think she’s a disingenuous hack and would think twice before wrapping fish in one of her articles. Please don’t ask me to present evidence that McArdle’s writing is not suitable for dead fish; just my opinion.

        Do you really enjoy wallowing in these weeds? Because it’s quite different from having a point.

      • Yes, you said “allegedly” in order to impune her integrity (and mine, for quoting her) with absolutely no basis to believe she was just making things up. You just implied it. Not a good way to go about making your point, in my opinion. But I’m happy to move on.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Wrong. I used the word allegedly correctly and clearly stated it was my opinion that she is not trustworthy based on my familiarity with her writing. That’s a perfectly fine way to make a point, in my opinion.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        And I wasn’t impugning YOUR integrity, just your judgment.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Since we’re still on the topic, Do you now recognize how you were wrong to dismiss content on a website because you found other content on that website objectionable? Or should I expect you to trot out the canard that I traffic in disreputable sources in the future? Also, what were those other “unsavory” sources that you accused me of using? Talk about smearing.

  7. casper3031 says:

    Didn’t say that. Carson is a non factor at this point.

    • rustybrown2014 says:

      Yes you did. Me:

      “do you really think Trump is worse than Cruz, Rubio, Carson?”

      You:

      “Yes , I do believe he is the worst ever”

      That’s pretty unambiguous, pal.

  8. Rusty you call yourself an intellectual. I am 34 years old and everyone who has read a newspaper knows about David Duke. Yes- I am closely connected to the ADL and maybe i am more of a news junkie, however David Duke during the Bush/Gore election made headlines when he told people he didn’t want the jew and that was all bushs. This is like not knowing who Farakan is. This guy is a known racist. Trump who is in his 70s knows who he is. Also his anti-immigration policy and many other policies are just terrible for this country. Silicon Valley is built on immigrant. America is built on immigration. I get the frustration from people why people vote for Trump. I will also admit as a Jewish American, Cruz scares the shit out of me worse than Trump but both are horrible choices

  9. if i could edit the post it would say david duke didn’t want the jewish vote in florida and that is was bushs. Sorry about that

    • rustybrown2014 says:

      Jake,

      It’s my belief that Trump’s immigration policy is mostly red meat for the rubes, although I do think he approves of strong borders as should all rational people. He’s been much softer on immigration in the past and there’s no way he’s going to implement the mass deportations he’s talking about. But I’ll tell you what he will do: I believe he’ll have a strict vetting process for Middle Eastern refugees and immigrants seeking entrance into our country. This is a very good thing unless you’re a fan of Merkel’s unexamined open door policy (that’s working out really well for Europe, isn’t it?) You don’t have to be Alex Jones to be suspicious of the overwhelming push by politicians and monied interests for globalization and open borders. A flood of impoverished third world people has a way of decimating the middle class and lowering standards for everyone but the wealthy, not to mention the deleterious affects on the indigenous culture.

      How would Hillary handle the situation? We don’t have to guess, she’s recently told us:

      1/16, TIME:
      Any particular foreign leader whose executive stewardship you admire and might want to emulate as president?

      H.C.
      “Well, I have to say that I highly admire Angela Merkel. I’ve known Angela since the 1990s, she and I actually appeared on a German TV show together. I have spent personal time with her. She is, I think, a really effective strong leader and really right now the major leader in Europe, not just in Germany. I admire her political skills and her principles, her strong work ethic. I just find her to be an incredibly important person in the world today and I look to her to see how she’s managed it.”

  10. casper3031 says:

    I admire would emulate FDR, but that does’t mean I I would agree with every decision he made (internment camps come to mind.) Same holds with Clinton and Merkel.

    • rustybrown2014 says:

      Gimme a break. Clinton is asked who she would emulate as a leader and she names Merkel and her handling of things “right now” and “today”. She said this smack in the middle of what will probably the defining touchstone of Merkel’s legacy: unfettered, unexamined welcoming of over a million immigrants to Germany (an unprecedentedly large number for a country of that size). It had been major news for months in no small part because there was plenty of opposition from Germany’s coalition government and the German people. So this was clearly on Clinton’s radar when she made those remarks.

      But, whoops!, Clinton’s timing was bad. It was very shortly after her statement when Europe felt the first waves of coordinated mob attacks perpetrated by swarthy newcomers against unsuspecting Western ladies, among other assimilation problems. Markel has since been in hot water and backtracking on the policies that Clinton tacitly endorsed. No word if Clinton is similarly troubled.

      • casper3031 says:

        Rusty,
        You are starting to sound like amazon the way you want to go with the guilt by association crap. i’m not a clinton fan, but she’s much better than anyone on the Republican side.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Casper, How in blazes do you interpret guilt by association from my comments? Are you fucking retarded? And by the way, I never said she was was worse than Trump.

  11. casper3031 says:

    Looks like Trump and Cruz are the big winners for the Republicans. The two worst Candidates.

  12. rustybrown2014 says:

    I don’t usually like Salon since it became a platform for so many regressive left views, but this guy seems to know what he’s talking about when breaking down the Trump appeal. Here’s a snippet, but I suggest reading the whole thing, it’s short:

    “America is a vastly wealthier country today than it was forty years ago. Furthermore, on a per-person basis, the country’s wealth has increased far more over the past four decades than it did in the thirty years immediately after World War II.

    Here are the numbers: between 1945 and 1974, per capita GDP in the U.S. grew from $17,490 to $27,837. That is an impressive improvement, but it pales in comparison to what has happened since: in 2014, per capita GDP was $55,185, i.e., almost exactly double what it was in 1974. In terms of economic output, the country is twice as rich per person now as it was then.

    Where has all this money gone? The answer ought to shock anyone who cares about either economic opportunity or increasing inequality. The average household income of the bottom 50% of American households was $25,475 in 1974, and $26,520 in 2014. In other words, half the population has gotten essentially none of the extra $10 trillion dollars of national wealth that the American economy has generated over the past forty years.

    Keep in mind that this group includes fully half of the nation’s middle class, by every standard definition of that category.

    Meanwhile, over this same time, the average household income of the top five percent of American households (most of the members of this group would not, of course, consider themselves rich, let alone part of the actual plutocracy) has gone from $187,729 to $332,347. As for the really rich, the numbers are truly staggering: in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars, the household income of the top 0.01% (roughly, the nation’s 13,000 richest households) increased by about seven-fold, from less than $5 million to more than $30 million per year.

    Of course, some of Trump’s appeal is based on his willingness to exploit racism and xenophobia while speaking to the economic anxieties of white middle and working class voters. But establishment politicians are making a big mistake when they under-estimate the extent to which Trump’s message – crude and bombastic as it is — that Americans were winners but are now losers, resonates with the actual life experience of so many people.”

    Gee, maybe there are other issues besides race. Also:

    “For forty years the GOP has managed to manipulate culture war issues and racial and ethnic animosities (as evidenced by opinions on this blog, the left has been successful and complicit in this manipulation as well) to hide from its base two facts: the contemporary Republican party exists to protect the economic interests of (the donor) class, and those interests don’t actually align with the economic interests of middle- and working-class Americans, even if they happen to be white and culturally conservative.”

    I would indict the Democrats as well as being mostly for the donor class as well.

    Here’s a few open questions:

    Why is racism seemingly your biggest concern in this election?

    Watson mentions an uneven playing field; how so? I mean, I’m sure you can find some disparities and injustices here and there, hell LIFE is uneven for all of us for a variety of reasons, but what massive disparity exists for contemporary American blacks that justifies this being the issue of penultimate importance?

    http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/listen_to_the_donald_trump_voters_it_has_taken_an_ignorant_demagogue_to_tell_truth_about_gop_humiliate_party_establishment/

  13. rustybrown2014 says:

    Another great article by Paul Campos:

    Clinton “earned” more than $3.7 million in this way in just the two years between her departure from the Obama administration and the official start of her presidential campaign.

    “That’s what they offered,” she explained on Wednesday, when asked why she accepted $675,000 from Goldman Sachs alone. That response carried an unfortunate echo of bank robber Willie Sutton’s explanation for why he robbed banks. “Because that’s where the money is,” he supposedly said. (This in turn brings to mind Bertolt Brecht’s remark that robbing a bank is nothing compared to founding one.)

    Clinton could have protected her purportedly progressive bona fides in two ways. First, of course, she could have not taken the money. There is something disgusting about the spectacle of someone who was already wealthy far beyond the imagining of ordinary Americans continuing to accept what she claims were unsuccessful attempts to bribe her, even as she was on the eve of launching a presidential campaign supposedly dedicated to protecting the interests of those ordinary Americans against the depredations of the very masters of the universe funneling millions of dollars into her personal bank account.

    Alternatively, she could at least ask voters to hate the game, not the player.

    “Yes, it’s a rotten system through and through,” she could have said. “The revolving door that allows politicians to rotate out of office, take huge fees from people trying to win their favor, and then rotate back in, is absurd and wrong. I plan to do my best to make sure that in the future people can’t do this, because I know after seeing it from the inside just how corrupt it is.” (This, by the way, is not too different from what Donald Trump has been saying, which helps explain his popularity, since it’s so obviously true).

    Instead, Clinton is taking the line that this is just how the system works (and will apparently continue to work), but that for unspecified reasons she happens to be the kind of person who can be trusted to defraud the people whose money she took.

    Move along, nothing of importance here. Oh look! There’s a racist endorsing Trump! Light the torches!

    http://www.salon.com/2016/02/05/hillary_clintons_self_satisfied_privilege_her_goldman_sachs_problem_helps_explain_the_popularity_of_bernie_sanders_and_donald_trump/

    • rustybrown2014 says:

      Weird. Don’t know what went wrong with the tags. The entirety of the text between the bold parts should be bold as well (all of that is quoted article).

  14. rustybrown2014 says:

    This is a truly great article I highly encourage everyone to read. I think the class issues Greer are examining here are infinitely more important than the largely manufactured race issues that dominate the national discussion today (no surprise to people here, it’s what I’ve been saying all along). This is the type of information the salary class and everybody above it don’t want people to think about.

    “In 1966 an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage could count on having a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other ordinary necessities of life, with some left over for the occasional luxury. In 2016, an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage is as likely as not to end up living on the street, and a vast number of people who would happily work full time even under those conditions can find only part-time or temporary work when they can find any jobs at all. The catastrophic impoverishment and immiseration of the American wage class is one of the most massive political facts of our time—and it’s also one of the most unmentionable. Next to nobody is willing to talk about it, or even admit that it happened.

    The destruction of the wage class was largely accomplished by way of two major shifts in American economic life. The first was the dismantling of the American industrial economy and its replacement by Third World sweatshops; the second was mass immigration from Third World countries….

    …I see the Trump candidacy as a major watershed in American political life, the point at which the wage class—the largest class of American voters, please note—has begun to wake up to its potential power and begin pushing back against the ascendancy of the salary class.

    Whether he wins or loses, that pushback is going to be a defining force in American politics for decades to come. Nor is a Trump candidacy anything approaching the worst form that could take. If Trump gets defeated, especially if it’s done by obviously dishonest means, the next leader to take up the cause of the wage class could very well be fond of armbands or, for that matter, of roadside bombs.”

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/01/donald-trump-and-politics-of-resentment.html

    • Why is racism seemingly your biggest concern in this election?

      Was that a question for me? If so, racism isn’t my biggest concern in this election. The fact that I pointed out that to me (and many others) Trump is essentially running a racist campaign in many ways doesn’t mean it is my biggest concern in this election. But it’s comforting to know that the Trump candidacy isn’t “anything approaching the worst form that could take.”

      I do agree with you that Trump is tapping into the concerns of the working class, what some have referred to as “working class authoritarians.” By that reading, this class of Trump supporters is likely to be white, likely to have no college degree, likely to earn less than $50,000 a year, and be a self-proclaimed conservative. I (and others) would call this the “white working class,” and there is no question that Trump posits himself as their champion I believe that this class of Americans is threatened by many aspects of modern American life, including globalization and changing American demographics, and they react accordingly.

      As far as an uneven playing field for blacks, first off, it isn’t my penultimate issue. I obviously see the issue of racism, both historically and contemporarily (is that a word?) far different from you, to the point that there simply will never be any common ground with you.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Watson, you take the cake. You insist that race is not the most important issue for you, but when I present you several articles outlining major economic reasons for the resentment that’s giving rise to an outsider like Trump which have nothing to do with race it takes you one sentence to steer the discussion back to….race. You distill the legitimately disgruntled wage class which is in fact color-blind down to “the white working class”, for whom you clearly have enormous contempt. I think at this point it’s obvious that you have an obsession with viewing every topic (at least relating to Trump) through the prism of racism, whether it’s real or imagined. I advise some self-reflection because this seems borderline pathological to me. To make matters worse, when asked several times you can’t even articulate what exactly the current racial crisis is. It just IS.

        Common ground? How can anyone who doesn’t uncritically accept American black victimhood as a starting point find common ground with you? How can anybody who doesn’t accept the burden of universal white guilt, regardless of class or circumstance, find common ground with you?

      • Rusty, I don’t even know what “one sentence” I took to steer the discussion back to race. The point of the original post I summarized long ago. If that makes me preoccupied with race, well, okay. I mean, if you look at all of the posts I made at this blog, there is clearly a pattern of preoccupation with race, that’s for sure. As for Donald Trump appealing to white working class authoritarians, I’m hardly the first one to suggest that or to use the term itself. Go argue with those folks; they might have more time to devote to you than I do.

        As for race relations in American, I would suggest some sources that you could read that might have a different point-of-view from your own regarding black America, but I just don’t believe you would accept them. E.g., The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, Between The World And Me by Ta-Nehesi Coates, or even Coates’ essay for The Atlantic, “The Case For Reparations.” But of course, you would dismiss Coates’ own book as nothing but his “alleged” experiences which you can’t know to be true, and therefore are not to be trusted.

        Earlier you asked, “Do you think they would be better off if their ancestors were never brought over from Africa?” In my experience, that’s a question asked by people whose own answer is “no.” It’s just mind-bogglingly arrogant to suggest that forcibly capturing people to make them slaves was ultimately to their benefit–not directly, of course, but their descendants will thank them later.

        But anyway, I’m tired of all the insults hurled at me and at others here (e.g., calling Casper a “fucking retard”). I guess I’ve gotten to the same question as the B4V folks: Why do you come here? Clearly no one can keep up with you. Our intellects are inferior to yours. We’re obsessed with topics you think we shouldn’t be (which makes me wonder why you keep responding to virtually every comment here). We’re pathological and inarticulate. So go find another sandbox. Better yet, start your own and let us know where to find it. That way, you can choose the topics and obsessions yourself, ’cause I’m kinda done.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        “But anyway, I’m tired of all the insults hurled at me and at others here” (e.g., calling Casper a “fucking retard”).

        Please. I’m much more prone to sharp sarcasm than name calling and you often engage in that too. I hazard to say it’s my arguments that bother you, not a few bouts of barbing here or there. As for using the word retard, for one thing I technically didn’t call Casper a retard, I asked if he was one. And, yeah, it’s a bit frustrating when you take the time to clearly explain yourself and somebody lays a completely inane one-setence turd response at the end of it. I mean, Casper equated Clinton’s clear endorsement of Merkle’s disastrous policies with me using “guilt by association”! If there’s any guilt by association going on there, it’s being done by Clinton associating herself with Merkle, not by me. But you’re right, it’s not nice to make fun of the retarded.

        “As for Donald Trump appealing to white working class authoritarians, I’m hardly the first one to suggest that or to use the term itself. Go argue with those folks; they might have more time to devote to you than I do.”

        My beef isn’t necessarily with Trumps appeal to that group or with the term for the group itself (although, as you weed through the definition you sometimes find some troubling group assumptions which are pretty racist), my beef is with your complete refusal to consider any other dynamics or points of view, and your repeated cavalier denigrating of lower class whites which I honestly see as quite racist, far more so than anything I’ve presented. I have no problem discussing race, I quite like it, but I find it strange and disingenuous when you ignore every other pertinent topic brought up. I mean, look at the genesis of this discussion: Trump’s appeal. Right out of the gate you list seven reasons, a full five of them severely racist. Fair enough, but when I post numerous variables which I feel are quite valid and suitable to the discussion–economics, disillusion with the status quo, outsourcing, non-racist concerns about immigration, justified disgust with Clinton, income inequality, etc., etc.–you completely ignore them and immediately pivot back to the “white working class” and their laughable fear of foreigners and “modern life”, like they’re some kind of pathetic species in a zoo. That’s fine, but it seems like a strange and myopic way of discussing something.

        I’m familiar with Alexander and Coates and find many their arguments unoriginal, unconvincing and hyperbolic, although highly influential in todays society. I’m quite interested in discussing it further but at this point perhaps you’re not. Your “alleged” quip there is a cheap shot.

        “It’s just mind-bogglingly arrogant to suggest that forcibly capturing people to make them slaves was ultimately to their benefit–not directly, of course, but their descendants will thank them later.”

        The question was: ““Do you think they would be better off if their ancestors were never brought over from Africa?” I knew that would get a rise because a question like that sends up all kinds of racist red flags, and rightfully so. That question has undoubtedly been uttered by all varieties of ignorant, redneck, toothless, inbred, hog-fucking racists–but that doesn’t mean it’s not a valid or interesting question. If you think about it, it’s really a damn fascinating question, but an extremely uncomfortable one. I’m sure you’re aware that philosophers, sociologists, ethicists and the like discuss all kinds of alarming and troubling hypotheticals without taking them personally or being vilified for their explorations (hopefully not anyway). That’s where I’m coming from. I take it from your statement that your answer to the question would be “no”. I’d be interested to hear why, but I guess that’s not forthcoming.

        In closing, I would suggest you consider the implications of finding a mere question so deeply offensive and worthy of censure. I mean, I think a truly disgusting and ignorant racist question would be deserving of a righteous response with a healthy dollop of reprobation on top or, if it’s really disgusting, complete silence. But if answering the question is what you find troubling I would think that would be cause for some self-reflection. Or is it your opinion that some questions should just never be asked?

        It’s your blog and if elevating the tone of conversation is important to you I respect that and would try to abide.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Oh, sorry, I meant I assume your response to the question would be “yes”, not “no”.

      • As for using the word retard, for one thing I technically didn’t call Casper a retard, I asked if he was one.

        Yes, we know you didn’t “technically” call him a retard. Doesn’t matter.

        I mean, look at the genesis of this discussion: Trump’s appeal. Right out of the gate you list seven reasons, a full five of them severely racist.

        That is because, right out of the gate, you asked me the point of quoting an article that quoted a Trump supporter who, I think, represents a certain segment of Trump’s supporters. There is an element of racism that is part of Trump’s appeal, which many, many political commentators have noted. I summarized why I thought that was. Is that the entirety of Trump’s appeal? Of course not. Are white nationalists the sole supporters of Trump? Of course not. But yes, the point of posting that quote was that, to me, it is representative of an aspect of Trump’s appeal that I don’t find particularly appealing.

        I’m familiar with Alexander and Coates and find many their arguments unoriginal, unconvincing and hyperbolic, although highly influential in todays society. I’m quite interested in discussing it further but at this point perhaps you’re not.

        I’m not surprised. Frankly, I just don’t have time to write a thorough and serious response for you. It’s like the Muslim thing. Yes, I could sit down and write one, as I did then, but I don’t have the time. And for what purpose? This is why I suggest that you look elsewhere for someone more willing to engage with you. Perhaps if you start your own blog, you will attract such people.

        Your “alleged” quip there is a cheap shot.

        That’s funny. So did I when you originally brought it up. Common ground!

        The question was: ““Do you think they would be better off if their ancestors were never brought over from Africa?”

        Yes, I know. I quoted you exactly. As far as I’m concerned, my comment stands. Furthermore, anyone who thinks anyone is or was morally justified in enslaving other human beings should offer up their own children first. You are also engaging in a form of reverse history in an apparent attempt to ameliorate the original issue.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Are white nationalists the sole supporters of Trump? Of course not. But yes, the point of posting that quote was that, to me, it is representative of an aspect of Trump’s appeal that I don’t find particularly appealing.

        Well fine then, we agree, and I said so early on. I was just trying to broaden the discussion and add nuance. If you’re not interested in that, fair enough. I guess we just drifted into the weeds on this one. No doubt it’s a hot-button topic.

        But on the other topic, are you saying my original use of the word “alleged” was a cheap shot? If so, it wasn’t and I’ve previously explained why. Why do you have such a hard time believing that based on what I perceive to be her numerous prevarications I personally don’t trust Megan McArdle’s journalistic integrity? Is that such a bizarre concept? And why do you assume I would ascribe the same distrust to every other writer I disagree with? Sorry, that’s just lazy thinking. I have plenty of problems with Coats’ writing; dishonesty is not one of them.This is really a silly, inconsequential matter, I’ve said that more than once as well, but it’s annoying to be so thoroughly misunderstood.

        Furthermore, anyone who thinks anyone is or was morally justified in enslaving other human beings should offer up their own children first. You are also engaging in a form of reverse history in an apparent attempt to ameliorate the original issue.

        First off, NOBODY said or even remotely implied that “anyone is or was morally justified in enslaving other human beings”. I can’t stress that forcefully enough. If that’s what you think I’m implying, you’re severely misreading what I’m saying and simply making things up out of whole cloth. Second, I’m not quite sure what you mean by “reverse history”, because I’m really only talking about “history” and offering this question as a thought experiment that is actually somewhat pertinent to the plight of contemporary blacks. People who discuss The Trolly Problem aren’t really advocating for someones death by trolly no matter which position they take. I also don’t understand what you mean by “original issue”. Do you mean modern black grievances or historical slavery? Because if you think I’m trying to ameliorate slavery that’s disgusting.

        Regardless, it’s obvious by your answer that you do indeed think that some questions shouldn’t be posed under any circumstances (after all, if you can’t kick around this idea in a small blog I presume you can’t kick it around anywhere). You find some questions just too uncomfortable or challenging to countenance. I would describe that as a type of self-censorship; a line of inquiry and information that you will not engage in. Fine again, just different from how I think. I actually find difficult questions invigorating, especially when they challenge my conventions.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Sorry to needle you some more, but I gotta point this out. You said:

        …right out of the gate, you asked me the point of quoting an article that quoted a Trump supporter who, I think, represents a certain segment of Trump’s supporters. There is an element of racism that is part of Trump’s appeal…

        But the person you quoted said nothing about race! He commented on nationalism. It was you, Watson, who dutifully filled in the blank and transformed his quote into “white nationalism”, no doubt subconsciously prompted by the articles superfluous and sneering mention of the “longhorn belt buckle the size of a miniature football”.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Stop the presses! Breaking news! I just glanced at the Times article for the first time and theres no mention of “wore a longhorn belt buckle the size of a miniature football.” ! I think we just caught the Times self-censoring! Told you that was a dog whistle, but one for people who are racist against whites.

      • But on the other topic, are you saying my original use of the word “alleged” was a cheap shot?

        Because even though you disagree with McArdle, and even thought you think she has no journalistic integrity, you have been unable to provide any evidence whatsoever that she fabricates sources or events or facts (or anything else, so far as I can tell) in her writing. I even did a bit of googling to see if there were any controversies in this regard pertaining to McArdle. I couldn’t find any. You just threw it out there in order to dismiss her column and to demean her.

        Second, I’m not quite sure what you mean by “reverse history”, because I’m really only talking about “history” and offering this question as a thought experiment that is actually somewhat pertinent to the plight of contemporary blacks.

        It’s a useless thought experiment because we have no way of knowing what would have happened over a 300 year period if the North American economies had not benefitted from slave labor. Nor do we know how West Africa itself would have evolved if its people had not been forcibly removed for slave labor. It’s an argument that apologists use, and not many others that I am aware of. I’ll assume you are one of the exceptions. Even if somehow you could definitively show that current African-Americans the better for having slave descendants, it still doesn’t excuse the immorality of slavery. What next? Are you going to posit, as a thought experiment, that blacks of today are better off because their grandparents enjoyed separate but equal accommodations? That they’re better off because their parents and grandparents were systematically denied full participation in the American economy? That future generations of African-Americans will be better off because their grandparents were the subject of mass incarceration? That lynching proved over time to have been a good thing?

        Regardless, it’s obvious by your answer that you do indeed think that some questions shouldn’t be posed under any circumstances (after all, if you can’t kick around this idea in a small blog I presume you can’t kick it around anywhere). You find some questions just too uncomfortable or challenging to countenance. I would describe that as a type of self-censorship; a line of inquiry and information that you will not engage in. Fine again, just different from how I think. I actually find difficult questions invigorating, especially when they challenge my conventions.

        To address your questions with any depth would require more time than I’m willing to devote to you You just want to argue ad infinitum. This isn’t the first time we’ve been around the block on this.

      • Stop the presses! Breaking news! I just glanced at the Times article for the first time and theres no mention of “wore a longhorn belt buckle the size of a miniature football.” ! I think we just caught the Times self-censoring! Told you that was a dog whistle, but one for people who are racist against whites.

        Right, Rusty. I said in my very first comment, “By ‘nationalism,’ I think people like the speaker really mean white nationalism, as in white nationalists.” I connected the dots. It’s not that hard. Many have done so far better than I. Do some googling and spend the rest of Sunday arguing with them. The New York Times even mentioned it:

        Possibly more surprising are the attitudes of Mr. Trump’s supporters on things that he has not talked very much about on the campaign trail. He has said nothing about a ban on gays in the United States, the outcome of the Civil War or white supremacy. Yet on all of these topics, Mr. Trump’s supporters appear to stand out from the rest of Republican primary voters.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-supporters-for-intolerance.html

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        About McArdle I’ll tell you what: You keep insisting that I was being duplicitous for expressing my personal opinions of her, and I’ll keep copying and pasting this simple explanation (maybe it will sink in if read enough times):

        I’ve been familiar with McArdle’s work for a while now. I find her work to be extremely partisan to the point of frequently twisting the truth to make her own case. Based on what I perceive to be her numerous prevarications I personally don’t trust Megan McArdle’s journalistic integrity. Do you know what “personally” means Watson? It means: “from someone’s personal standpoint or according to their particular nature; in a subjective rather than an objective way.” In other words, I am explicitly presenting my opinion based on familiarity, not fact.

        we have no way of knowing what would have happened over a 300 year period if the North American economies had not benefitted from slave labor

        North America is not the only economy to engage slave labor. The entire world has engaged in slave labor, including Africa. In fact Africa still practices slavery today and they’d been engaging in it for thousands of years before America was founded. So if your argument is that America had an incalculable advantage due to slavery then Africa should still be enjoying that slavery advantage today, no? So your speculation here is a bit beside the point. You may as well be asking “what would have happened if the global slave trade never existed?”, which is actually kind of an interesting question.

        Even if somehow you could definitively show that current African-Americans the better for having slave descendants, it still doesn’t excuse the immorality of slavery.

        No arguments from me there, you’re 100% right of course. But I really don’t think there’s any question that the decedents of American slaves are far better off than modern day native Africans; you can simply swap the question with “Is one better off today born in America or in Africa?” without losing any meaning and the answer is resoundingly “America”. There are many indexes that make this case–life expectancy, safety, income, etc., etc.–they all favor the American baby having a better life. As for your other thought experiments, I find them ridiculous, as I’m sure you do too. The answer to all of them of course is “no”.

        I said in my very first comment, “By ‘nationalism,’ I think people like the speaker really mean white nationalism, as in white nationalists.” I connected the dots. It’s not that hard

        Apparently not for you. I’m sorry Watson, you were the one who scrambled to a racial angle when one simply wasn’t there. The person you quoted talked about nationalism and you immediately interpreted that to be racist, even though nothing of the sort was indicated and I think it’s most probable he was referring to the type of economic nationalism I’ve been bringing up and which Trump explicitly talks about every chance he gets, “Make America Great Again”, sound familiar?

        But why do you think the Times scrubbed the belt buckle quip? Do you find that interesting? I do. I think they removed it because it was a gratuitous dog whistle for people who harbor prejudiced resentments against whites, especially poor southern whites, and it’s unfortunate that you seemed to hear it.

      • About McArdle I’ll tell you what: You keep insisting that I was being duplicitous for expressing my personal opinions of her, and I’ll keep copying and pasting this simple explanation (maybe it will sink in if read enough times)

        Doesn’t matter how many times you paste it. You implied that she made up the emails she received with no basis to make such an assertion. Doesn’t matter if she’s extremely partisan and you know it. You’d have more of a leg to stand on if you suggested that she misrepresented the character of the email she received, but you stand by your claim that the emails themselves were alleged. Okay…

        North America is not the only economy to engage slave labor. The entire world has engaged in slave labor, including Africa.

        Which makes your question about whether current African-Americans are better off for having slave descendants even more ridiculous.

        But I really don’t think there’s any question that the decedents of American slaves are far better off than modern day native Africans

        Irrelevant. You can also say that Americans whose descendants were not American slaves are better off than those that were.

        I’m sorry Watson, you were the one who scrambled to a racial angle when one simply wasn’t there. The person you quoted talked about nationalism and you immediately interpreted that to be racist, even though nothing of the sort was indicated and I think it’s most probable he was referring to the type of economic nationalism I’ve been bringing up and which Trump explicitly talks about every chance he gets, “Make America Great Again”, sound familiar?

        It may well be that that particular speaker had no racial animus whatsoever. The problem is that there is a clearly documented instance of racially-based support for Donald Trump, including support from self-identified white nationalist leaders and organizations. They don’t even bother with dog whistles anymore. It is one of the uglier aspects of Trump’s appeal. It doesn’t matter that you don’t want it point out, it is still a fact. And sorry, Rusty, I’m not the one who injected white nationalist organizations and leaders into Donald Trump’s campaign. Donald Trump did by his own words and actions.

        But why do you think the Times scrubbed the belt buckle quip? Do you find that interesting? I do. I think they removed it because it was a gratuitous dog whistle for people who harbor prejudiced resentments against whites, especially poor southern whites, and it’s unfortunate that you seemed to hear it.

        It’s slightly interesting. But I don’t need the New York Times dog whistle to see what is happening. It’s well documented just about everywhere. You’re well read. I’m sure you’re aware of it. Evidently you believe that it is racist to point out racism and racially based appeals. Utter bullshit, my friend.

        Now, we’ve gone in circles more than once just in this thread. I’m done.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        It’s not only that McArdle’s partisan, and I DO have a basis for making my assertion. That basis is that I’ve been familiar with McArdle’s work for a while now. I find her work to be extremely partisan to the point of frequently twisting the truth to make her own case. Based on what I perceive to be her numerous prevarications I personally don’t trust Megan McArdle’s journalistic integrity. Do you know what “personally” means Watson? It means: “from someone’s personal standpoint or according to their particular nature; in a subjective rather than an objective way.” In other words, I am explicitly presenting my opinion based on familiarity, not fact.

        Which makes your question about whether current African-Americans are better off for having slave descendants even more ridiculous.

        How so?

        Irrelevant.

        Huh? That’s my answer to the exact question we’re talking about. How in blazes can the answer to a question be irrelevant to the question? Are you trying to goad me into insulting you by posting such inanities?

        It may well be that that particular speaker had no racial animus whatsoever.

        Well how incredibly fucking charitable of you, considering that the speaker made no reference to race whatsoever. Sorry Watson, you clearly responded to a racist dog whistle and presumed racism where there was no evidence it existed. Nobody said you “injected white nationalist organizations and leaders into Donald Trump’s campaign”, I said you injected white nationalism onto this mans non-racial quote. Sorry man, there’s really no denying it, and there’s no shame in saying “Hmm, you’ve got a point. Didn’t realize I did that”. Do you introspect at all? If you’re able to conjure racism where none exists it’s no surprise to me that you’re overemphasizing it for the entire campaign, especially since just about 100% of the media is doing it at this point.

        I’ve never denied that a certain segment of racists and racist groups support Trump, look back on this thread and you’ll see me recognizing that early on. Trump doesn’t deny it either, and correctly reminds us that a candidate cannot be responsible for who choose to support him. How do you feel about the open endorsements for Bernie Sanders by hard core communists?

        http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/sanders-wins-nod-from-noted-communist-leader/

        Haven’t heard many self-righteous requests from the media for Sanders to disavow those. Communist regimes killed over 100 million people in the last century.

        Evidently you believe that it is racist to point out racism and racially based appeals.

        Not at all. It’s racist to insert racist connotations where none exist.

        Frankly I don’t see this as going around in circles, I see it as a conversation. But I can understand why you’d find it disquieting.

      • Not at all. It’s racist to insert racist connotations where none exist.

        Sorry. Trump and his supporters inserted it. It’s not racist to point it out, no matter how much you dislike it. We’re done.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Trump and his supporters inserted (racist connotations)

        I’d agree with that, but so did you. The two are not mutually exclusive.

        It’s not racist to point (racist connotations) out, no matter how much you dislike it

        I don’t think it’s racist to point them out, and I don’t dislike you pointing it out. I dislike that you think that’s the only, or even the prevailing dynamic going on.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        You’ve pointed out that there are racists elements in the Trump campaign. I’ve agreed with you all along. But, congratulations. You’ve discovered the secret message that has been blaring from every single media outlet throughout America for the last several months. Quite the insight.

      • But, congratulations. You’ve discovered the secret message that has been blaring from every single media outlet throughout America for the last several months. Quite the insight.

        More insults. I’m just amazed at your tenacity at trying to get a rise out of people. Are you like this in real life, too?

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Yes. It’s not easy being right about everything. Nobody comes to my parties anymore. But seriously, I’m more toned down in everyday life. And my friends are a pretty open-minded bunch, so I do alright. You, on the other hand, must be the life of the party:

        “Hey Watson! What’s happening?”
        “Racism.”

        Ha, ha! Just kidding.

        Here’s a perspective that echoes my more nuanced and contextual view of slavery:

        “Without so much as asking a single question, many modern whites have gullibly swallowed a skewed and incomplete historical narrative that depicts them as history’s sole villains and the nonwhite world as innocent, suffering lambs.

        Whenever I note that when it comes to the emotionally hypersensitive topic of slavery, there is more than enough historical guilt to go around and that slavery’s history cannot neatly be boxed into binary struggles of good versus evil or black versus white, I am invariably accused of trying to alleviate or deny the guilt that we ceaselessly lectured whites should constantly be torturing ourselves with.

        Nearly all modern historians agree that the scenario depicted by Alex Haley in Roots—that of white raiders penetrating the African interior to rout African villages for slaves—is fraudulent. Instead, European slave traders nearly always bought slaves from African vendors at coastal markets. We hear much about the brutal “Middle Passage” across the Atlantic Ocean, but almost never about the estimated 10 million or so indigenous Africans who perished while being marched to the sea in chains and yokes by their African captors.

        I have endlessly more respect for modern African leaders who are willing to acknowledge their ancestors’ role in slavery than I do for modern ethno-masochistic whites that try, against all evidence, to isolate guilt only on the white side and smear all whites from here to eternity with the invisible shit stain of guilt. I also have far more respect for these African leaders than I do any modern American blacks who blame whites, and only whites, for every last drop of black suffering.

        If I feel a kinship with anyone, it is with those who are intelligent and noble enough to acknowledge that history is unbearably complex and is more reasonably viewed as a power struggle between winners and losers rather than good guys and bad guys. In the end, only morons strain to justify historical events, while wise men merely try to understand them.”

        http://takimag.com/article/did_africans_sell_africans_into_slavery_lets_ask_some_africans_jim_goad/print#axzz42CyyYeJS

      • Congratulations for having open-minded friends.

        The article you quoted about the culpability of Africans in the slave trade is of minor interest, but does nothing to clarify your previous stances with regard to the plight of black Americans.

        If I feel a kinship with anyone, it is with those who are intelligent and noble enough to acknowledge that history is unbearably complex and is more reasonably viewed as a power struggle between winners and losers rather than good guys and bad guys. In the end, only morons strain to justify historical events, while wise men merely try to understand them.

        Indeed, one would think that “those who are intelligent and noble”–obviously that includes you, Rusty–would have the ability to intuit how generations of systemic economic disenfranchisement, up to the current generation of blacks, would have a deleterious effect on their economic prosperity as a class. But that’s just a bridge too far for wise men to cross. Only morons would fall for such a line of thinking.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        generations of systemic economic disenfranchisement, up to the current generation of blacks, would have a deleterious effect on their economic prosperity as a class. But that’s just a bridge too far for wise men to cross. Only morons would fall for such a line of thinking.

        No, only morons would assert this without being able to provide any examples of systemic economic disenfranchisement of the current generation of blacks when repeatedly asked.

      • No, only morons would assert this without being able to provide any examples of systemic economic disenfranchisement of the current generation of blacks when repeatedly asked.

        You can start with mass incarceration.

        You can start with systematic disenfranchisement of non-white voters.

        You can start with the fact in 2016 redlining against African-Americans still occurs.

        Never mind the fact that the parents and grandparents of contemporary blacks were subjected to much worse disenfranchisement, which systematically denied them access to wealth, and which therefore denies the current generation wealth.

        But that’s just a start off the top of my head. You’re intelligent and noble. You should be able to do your own homework.

        Anyway, I’ve grown tired of this game. A serious question before I put an end to it: With all of your open-minded friends and rich social life, why on earth do you spend your time with the morons here and at B4V? Why the never-ending needling and provocations? (Because clearly that is the real reason you are here and at B4V.) Wouldn’t you be better off starting your own blog and inviting your enlightened, open-minded friends to participate? Surely you would find that much more enriching.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        mass incarceration

        Nope. Seems to me the people doing most of the crime in this country should also be overly represented in the prison population. The disproportionate overrepresentation of black criminality matches up pretty well with their large incarceration numbers.

        systematic disenfranchisement of non-white voters

        How so? And remember, we’re talking about blacks here, not all non-white voters.

        redlining against African-Americans still occurs

        Redlining is a very complex issue with many moving parts, but it’s mostly a thing of the past. Modern situations that may appear to be redlining in fact turn out to be economically based business decisions and often discriminate against the poverty stricken of all races, whites included. As in all things, classism is more instructive than racism here (although blacks do have a much higher default rate).

        But I guess the larger issue is apparent when you start talking about historical grievances, and we’ve been over that a bit before. America has done many things to alleviate it’s racial sins of the past and provide a more level field for blacks and there comes a time when enough’s enough and it makes sense to move forward. Life and history are not fair, the past is littered with many victims from all ethnic groups, whites included, which negatively affect their descendants today–it’s a part of the human condition. Other parts of the human condition are resiliency, hard work, pride, self-sufficiency and optimism.

        Why the never-ending needling and provocations? (Because clearly that is the real reason you are here…

        Not at all. What you call needling and provocations I call debating. Is it provocative? I certainly hope so. Here’s a question for you: Why are you so sensitive? Here we are arguing different points of view and you seem to be taking this very personally, why? I think I know why but I’d be interested to read your answer.

      • Not at all. What you call needling and provocations I call debating. Is it provocative? I certainly hope so. Here’s a question for you: Why are you so sensitive? Here we are arguing different points of view and you seem to be taking this very personally, why? I think I know why but I’d be interested to read your answer.

        Yes, we get it that you enjoy “debating.” It’s a game to you. Sensitive? I could ask the same of you. So could Casper. But I’m sensitive because… It. Never. Ends. If I reply to your last comment, you’ll just respond with another. So I call uncle. You win. Time for you to move on to another mark. Maybe I’ll reconsider later.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Sensitive? Me? How in blazes did you ever get that impression?

        Cheers!

  15. rustybrown2014 says:

    Watson, another day, another hate crime hoax. This one caught the attention of Hillary, but not in a way that’s good. Note at the end of the article how even though these black women are caught assaulting innocent white students and then attempt to perpetrate a hate crime hoax against their victims, the black girls may STILL be the victims because……I don’t know–micro aggressions endured, the Kafkaesque horror of being black college students, they’re brave “conversation starters” now, something like that. I’m sure you could explain it better than I could; you seem to understand that type of stuff.

    So let’s recap: Trump is a racist because certain allegedly racist groups give him their unsolicited support. But Hillary actively tweets her solidarity with vicious black thugs assaulting white people and she’s NOT a racist. Do I have that right?

    Btw, those black women should be charged with hate crimes, but don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen (didn’t you once bemoan the fact that more whites are charged with hate crimes than blacks? This is why that is, Watson). #nothingtoseehere.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/nyregion/racism-charges-in-bus-incident-and-their-unraveling-upset-u-of-albany.html

  16. rustybrown2014 says:

    So unrelenting are the culture warrior fascists that even when Sanders participates in a public self-shaming ritual meant to “correct” opinions which are double plus ungood, he is criticized for not flagellating himself properly.

    http://www.salon.com/2016/03/07/bernie_sanders_defends_ghetto_remark_that_sparked_outrage_during_debate_with_hillary_clinton_in_flint_michigian/

  17. rustybrown2014 says:

    Surprise, surprise. Here’s a major study which reinforces my arguments that people who are supporting Trump are doing so largely for economic concerns rather than out of horrid racism, contrary to what the media incessantly feeds us. Even this article overplays race in my opinion–immigration for instance is not necessarily a racial issue, not by a long shot. But this piece is closer to the mark than the standard media narrative. As I said before, I think the nationalism Mr. Voor was talking about in the topic of your post, Watson, was quite likely economic in nature, mysterious disappearing belt buckle notwithstanding.

    Here is the most salient supporting fact: when people talk to white, working-class Trump supporters, instead of simply imagining what they might say, they find that what most concerns these people is the economy and their place in it. I am referring to a study just published by Working America, a political-action auxiliary of the AFL-CIO, which interviewed some 1,600 white working-class voters in the suburbs of Cleveland and Pittsburgh in December and January.

    Support for Donald Trump, the group found, ran strong among these people, even among self-identified Democrats, but not because they are all pining for a racist in the White House. Their favorite aspect of Trump was his “attitude”, the blunt and forthright way he talks. As far as issues are concerned, “immigration” placed third among the matters such voters care about, far behind their number one concern: “good jobs / the economy”.

    “People are much more frightened than they are bigoted,” is how the findings were described to me by Karen Nussbaum, the executive director of Working America. The survey “confirmed what we heard all the time: people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very distressed about the fact that their kids don’t have a future” and that “there still hasn’t been a recovery from the recession, that every family still suffers from it in one way or another.”

    Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, puts it even more bluntly when I asked him about working-class Trump fans. “These people aren’t racist, not any more than anybody else is,” he says of Trump supporters he knows. “When Trump talks about trade, we think about the Clinton administration, first with Nafta and then with [Permanent Normal Trade Relations] China, and here in Northeast Indiana, we hemorrhaged jobs.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support

    • So I’m the obsessed one here? Okay, I’ll play along for one more round. About your study: Earlier you took great issue with my phrase “white working class,” and yet that is exactly the phrase this study uses to describe its target subjects. The phrase “white working class” appears in the study six times, including in the subtitle. Just wondering: Do you accuse them of being preoccupied by race, like you do me? As for the study itself, I’m happy to accept the results of the study group as an accurate reflection of that group. I would even go so far as to say that it more or less confirms what I would have thought, whether you believe it or not. And whether you believe me doesn’t matter: If you also think the study is an accurate representation of the “white working class,” then common ground. Hooray.

      BTW, all of the quotes and statistics I cite below come from the actual report, which can be found here: http://workingamerica.org/frontporchfocusgroup

      The article you quoted in turn quotes this statement from the study: “People are much more frightened than they are bigoted.” I have no reason not to believe that, especially given that the study specifically focused on “economically distressed neighborhoods.” But I also have no doubt that there are bigoted people, which the study also confirms, and that there is overlap between the two groups, just like this statement from the study implies.

      From the report itself, “Historically, about one-third of the people we encounter on the canvass are ideologically right-leaning – and this test was no different. Among these voters, attacks on immigrants; on African-Americans, including President Obama; and on Muslims resonate, and hold sway.” These arguments “hold sway” with a third of the people they encountered? Attacks on African-Americans, including President Obama? One third is not a small portion of the study population, which was 98% white, by the way, and this result does not assure me that bigotry, as they call it, is a thing of the past, nor does it assure me that the article overplays the issue of race, as you believe. Furthermore, about 18% of the study group specifically favored Trump (38% of the 47% who indicated a specific candidate preference), making me wonder what the overlap is between that 18% and the 33% who are “swayed” by attacks on immigrants, African-Americans, and Muslims. That question is not answered in the report.

      From the report: “For example, during the Obama candidacy in 2008 and 2012, issues of race and religion were overt, and we learned how to successfully address those questions with constituents.” Not only do I believe that race was an overt issue in 2008 and 2012, I know it to be true from my own direct experience during those campaigns.

      I accept the study’s finding that “In this front porch focus group, good jobs and the economy was still the top issue, with 27% of voters identifying this as their lead concern.” I would have thought that before reading this study. Isn’t it pretty much always the top issue? (According to the report, it has been for the 13 years they been doing the study.) That doesn’t negate the fact that Trump panders to a less savory impulse which, based on this study, exists to a rather sizable degree (33% of the study group). Even the report itself acknowledges “the bigotry and dog-whistle politics espoused by politicians like Donald Trump,” as well as the fact that “candidates and organizations are exploiting these [economic] anxieties with right-wing rhetoric that combines economic populism with bigotry.”

      Finally, this report does not dispute what I originally said was my point, when you asked:

      1. A good portion of Trump’s support comes from people who believe conservatism, as practiced by their elected Republican representatives, has failed. So why vote for a candidate who has been a party to that failure?

      2. A good portion of Trump’s supporters don’t much think through the consequences–they just want to throw the bastards out; that is, “let the establishment burn.”

      3. By “nationalism,” I think people like the speaker really mean white nationalism, as in white nationalists.

      4. According to a recent poll, more Trump supporters than supporters of other candidates agree that “whites are the superior race,” among other interesting findings.

      5. Trump appeals to white nationalists, such as David Duke, who the other day said a vote against Trump is “treason to your heritage.”

      6. White nationalists groups are working actively to elect trump, e.g., with robocalls that include statements such as, “We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.”

      7. Trump stokes the fears of Americans who are afraid of “others,” e.g. Mexicans or Muslims.

      I understand that you take issue with point 3 and claim that someone touting “new nationalism” at a Trump rally doesn’t necessarily mean they are talking about white nationalism. And I understand your desire to beat me over the head about it. Fine. I used it to symbolically to represent an aspect of the populist nature of the Trump campaign and its appeal. Points 1 and 2 have nothing to do with race. Points 4, 5 and 6 are fact. Point 7 is also fact, although you could quibble with my wording and the extent to which Trump does it, and the extent to which it works. But maybe you’ll accept the wording of the study itself, which states, “In this lead-up to the 2016 elections, candidates and organizations are exploiting these anxieties with right-wing rhetoric that combines economic populism with bigotry. This targeted strategy has our core constituency directly in the crosshairs.” And: “This cycle has explicitly elevated the challenge: How do you counter a continuous media-enhanced stream of right-wing rhetoric and disaggregate real grievances with the economy and political inequity from the bigotry and dog-whistle politics espoused by politicians like Donald Trump?”

      I kind of thought we were done here, so I didn’t bother to post this study came up a few days ago: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/05/some_of_trumps_strongest_supporters_are_registered_democrats_heres_why/. It just felt too much like Rusty troll bait. We could go on with the gotcha game but it isn’t accomplishing anything.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Who said you were obsessed?

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Earlier you took great issue with my phrase “white working class,” and yet that is exactly the phrase this study uses to describe its target subjects. The phrase “white working class” appears in the study six times, including in the subtitle. Just wondering: Do you accuse them of being preoccupied by race, like you do me?

        Not at all. For one thing, I’m used to you using the racially loaded terms “white nationalist” or “white xenophobia” much more than the term “white working class”, in fact, with a brief glance over our conversation I couldn’t even find you using the term “white working class”. But if you did, I feel confident it was to tar them as a racist demographic rather than just label them a “demographic”, which is what the study does as a starting point. Grand canyon of difference there, Watson, do you see that? Furthermore, you’ve made all matter of unwarranted racist assumptions about that demographic and proclaimed them guilty and complicit as a group by birthright, again something the study didn’t do.

        Look, this is all really simple: You incorrectly conflated a dude’s support for Trump with the racial overtones of white nationalism, I called you on it and argued that Trump’s support has more to do with classism and economic concerns than it does with racism and this study confirms that. I think we both agree with those facts, so what’s the contention? That a certain segment of Trump’s supporters are racist? I’ve repeatedly allowed that but also insisted that that’s far from the main issue here. We also differ in how much relevance each of us puts on white racism. I’ve been questioning your laser focus on identity politics to the expense of all other matters which, as the study shows, are apparently more relevant. And for all this talk of racism, why the omission of the many startling examples of black racism going on these days? Do you think black racists don’t make up a block of Clinton supporters? Or do you think black racists don’t even exist?

        I’ll have to mention just one of your takeaways from the study which I think you’ve overblown to the extreme. You place great significance in the author’s statement: “Historically, about one-third of the people we encounter on the canvass are ideologically right-leaning – and this test was no different. Among these voters, attacks on immigrants; on African-Americans, including President Obama; and on Muslims resonate, and hold sway.” You seem to draw a blanket conclusion that this means “one third of the white working class is racist”, but that is not at all evidenced in the unfortunately vague and awkward statement by the authors.

        For one thing, It’s not 33% who are “swayed by attacks, yada, yada” as you incorrectly surmised, it’s an UNSPECIFIED SUBSET of the historic 33% of right leaning voters that are “held sway” by these issues. What does “held sway” here mean anyway? We don’t know. What is meant by the word “attack” here? It doesn’t say. Are voters “attacks” on immigration and Obama (or even blacks or Muslims for that matter) necessarily racist ? Certainly not. But, for those invested in identity politics this all seems to translate into “a third of white working class voters are racist”. Unfortunately, Watson, I think your interpretation here is further evidence of your very prejudiced way of looking at the world.

      • Not at all. For one thing, I’m used to you using the racially loaded terms “white nationalist” or “white xenophobia” much more than the term “white working class”, in fact, with a brief glance over our conversation I couldn’t even find you using the term “white working class”.

        I did a search of the entire blog and comments, and the only time the words “nationalist” or “nationalism” have ever shown up is in this thread. And several of those instances were to describe David Duke, the KKK, and the white nationalist PAC that did robocalls for Trump. Is it the wrong word to use? That’s out of 207 threads. The only time I’ve ever used the word “xenophobia” is once in this thread, and once more when I quoted someone else using it. It has been used a few times by others, however. So I think you’re quips about laser-like focus are inaccurate, but I accept that that may be how it appears to you. I mean, to me, you demonstrate a never-ending laser-like focus as well, but I wouldn’t extrapolate from your comments in a blog like this as being representative of how much time you spend on these issues, or that you’re preoccupied with them. Anyway, I certainly admit that I am easily goaded into responding to you, which is pathetic in its own way. You’ve made your points. Now this thread is truly done.