It’s been a while since I’ve been inclined to post anything about politics, but I can’t let the occasion of the official destruction of The Deep Bench go unnoticed. The vaunted “deep bench” of Republican presidential contenders was today officially vanquished by an amateur. It’s about the only good thing to come out of Donald Trump’s impending nomination as the Republican candidate. But good lord, what a disastrous field the Republicans put forward this year.

I got a bit of a chuckle out of Ross Douthat’s column today, in which he writes that “Republican voters didn’t want True Conservatism any more than they wanted Bushism 2.0.” A longer quote (emphasis mine):

Trump proved that many evangelical voters, supposedly the heart of a True Conservative coalition, are actually not really values voters or religious conservatives after all, and that the less frequently evangelicals go to church, the more likely they are to vote for a philandering sybarite instead of a pastor’s son. Cruz would probably be on his way to the Republican nomination if he had simply carried the Deep South. But unless voters were in church every Sunday, Trump’s identity politics had more appeal than Cruz’s theological-political correctness.

Trump proved that many of the party’s moderates and establishmentarians hate the thought of a True Conservative nominee even more than they fear handing the nomination to a proto-fascist grotesque with zero political experience and poor impulse control. That goes for the prominent politicians who refused to endorse Cruz, the prominent donors who sat on their hands once the field narrowed and all the moderate-Republican voters in blue states who turned out to be #NeverCruz first and #NeverTrump less so or even not at all.

Finally, Trump proved that many professional True Conservatives, many of the same people who flayed RINOs and demanded purity throughout the Obama era, were actually just playing a convenient part. From Fox News’ 10 p.m. hour to talk radio to the ranks of lesser pundits, a long list of people who should have been all-in for Cruz on ideological grounds either flirted with Trump, affected neutrality or threw down their cloaks for the Donald to stomp over to the nomination. Cruz thought he would have a movement behind him, but part of that movement was actually a racket, and Trumpistas were simply better marks.

I’m not big on predictions–I’ll leave that to Mark Edward Noonan and his sorry track record–but I hope that Hillary trounces Trump. Nevertheless, one thing we should have learned by now is to not underestimate The Donald, nor the appeal that he generates. I think that appeal is too limited to win the general, and that the demographics are against him, but you never know. I may have to go work for another presidential campaign…

Meanwhile, to engage in a bit of schadenfreude, the comments at Blogs For Victory are just delightful. They’ll get with the program and support Trump because, ultimately, the only thing they all have in common is their hatred of President Obama, and now their hatred of Hillary Clinton. For example, see Amazona: “I’ll have to vote for Trump if he is the nominee, unless we come up with a third party before the election, which I think is probably impossible. I can’t just let the election go to Hillary because our party is infested with a bunch of fake conservatives who get all giddy and pee down their legs in glee if someone appeals to their issues while ignoring the fact that his promises all seem to depend on him out-Obamaing Obama when it comes to ruling rather than leading.”

Noonan hopes for a new party called the Christian Democrats. Yeah, that’s a great idea. Amazona suggests the Constitutional Party. “[A]nd I like Federalist except for the fact that it will confuse a lot of people when the party then comes out in favor of restricting federal size, scope and power.” She should read Douthat’s column.

Casper makes pretty much the same prediction as Noonan, and Amazona calls him a “good little Liberal footsoldier you.”

Eisenhower accurately lists the five cycles of grief (as seen on B4V as they come to grips with Trump) and gets jumped upon. Acceptance? No way, they cry. Except, well, yeah, we’re all gonna vote for him. Sure sounds like acceptance to me.

Cluster wants to “welcome this opportunity and work with the Trump coalition, educate it, and help navigate the party back to constitutional governance.” This after he admits that “it’s time that conservatives, and I include myself, recognize the reality of the political landscape and start to realize that our ideological brand is in the minority.” Um, Cluster, you don’t get it either. The Trump coalition doesn’t want or need your educational help. Does it occur to Cluster that his reaching out to educate them might come across as a tad condescending? Nah…

Advertisements
Comments
  1. rustybrown2014 says:

    Watson my friend! How are you? I missed you!

    Yes, the clown car of B4V is fuming. Have they ever been right about anything? Not that I can recall. I can remember Cluster crowing about the Republican “deep bench” just as loudly as he cackled about “global cooling”. Where are his words of wisdom now? On the scrapheap of forgotten idiocy.

    I love Noonan’s suggestion for a new party called the Christian Democrats, but he worries people might mistake it for a theocracy. Hmmm, what would ever give them that idea? What a maroon.

    As for my thoughts, the smart money is on Hillary but the resiliency of Trump cannot be ignored. He’s confounded all expectations and I suspect poll numbers may be skewed against him by people not wanting to admit they support Trump, which carries a certain stigma. What will they do in the anonymity of a voting booth? Should be interesting.

  2. casper3031 says:

    It has been interesting to watch as the people at BFV are starting to realize that their party isn’t what they thought it was. Cluster is at least starting understand that this isn’t the Center right county he thought it was. Sadly, he has know idea on how to connect with anyone he disagrees with. The rest aren’t much better. They will all end up voting for Trump because he isn’t Hilary no matter what he says or does between now and November.

  3. casper3031 says:

    Interesting article about one of the few to predict Trump would get this far.
    http://www.vox.com/2016/5/6/11598838/donald-trump-predictions-norm-ornstein

  4. casper3031 says:

    I truly wish that Cruz would have won the nomination. At least then, if he lost, conservatives would’t be able to say “if only we had run a “real” conservative we would have won.

  5. rustybrown2014 says:

    Gee, I wonder if this latest mass killing, the largest in US history, is a product of the dreaded “right-wing terrorists” Casper and others think are our greatest threat. Or could the shooter’s influences lie closer to the concerns I’ve been extolling? Time will tell.

  6. Who woulda thunk it? Rusty and Amazona ganging up on the personal insults. What a charming couple. They’re all saying it.

    • meursault1942 says:

      LOL Trumpers.

      Say, Rusty, “race realist” is a pretty funny euphemism. Would you care to offer a definition for it?

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Sure. A race realist believes that race is a real thing, not a social construct. The different races are variations within our species. Furthermore, just as you would expect if you understand the theory of evolution, different races possess different characteristics on average which are heritable. If you notice the difference between the hair texture and color of your typical Pygmy tribesman from that of your typical native Norwegian and attribute said difference to race, then you my friend are a race realist.

      • Of course, Rusty leaves out some of the ways in which racial realism has been used to justify institutional racism, such as slavery, Apartheid and so on. Check wikipedia, Meursault.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Watson,

        If a science is used to ends you don’t agree it doesn’t negate the veracity of the science in question. The use of genetics for eugenics is a good example, or nuclear fission for a bomb.

        Do you deny there are races and variability?

      • No, this part of the conversation, at least, started with you mentioning “race realism” on B4V and Meusault wondering what that meant. He had to ask here because he can’t ask there.

    • meursault1942 says:

      Yeah, to paraphrase Dennis Green, it it what I thought it is: Another attempt to repackage “scientific” racism. What a shocker.

      On the subject of the alt-right, here’s a rather instructive example that made the rounds recently. Some guy took it upon himself to write an article called “I’m a Jew, and I’m a member of the alt-right” in which he tried to argue that the alt-right is totally cool. And of course, he hand-waves away the anti-Semitism of the alt-right with the usual “ah, they aren’t really anti-Semitic, that’s just what those damn liberals say to smear them.”

      Now, at this point, you might be wondering why I linked to an archived version of the article instead of the live version. The answer is because the guy had to shut down the comments. Why? Because they were quickly inundated by alt-righters telling him that he’s wrong, they really are anti-Semitic (they regard Jews as cancer, leeches, and tapeworms), that Jews are decidedly not welcome in the alt-right, and that they don’t really like having Jews in the country at all. Fortunately, most of the comments are preserved in the archived version. Check them out if you want to see this poor sap get gored by the very people he (foolishly, ignorantly) tried to defend.

      So no, Rusty, the alt-right is not “reviled as racists and xenophobes and sexists for merely existing and having the gall to speak up for themselves.” They are reviled as racists and xenophobes and sexists because they say, do, and believe some really racist, xenophobic, and sexist things. If you feel the need to defend that as part of your pro-Trump stance (the alt-right, of course, being the foundation of Trump’s support and the core of the coalition you are joining), by all means knock yourself out.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        M.,

        Unable to deny the reality of race realism, you plug your ears, shut your eyes and bleat: “racist”. Yes, discussing racial differences is very scary and yucky, not for the faint of heart. Be sure to grab your hand fan as you lurch toward the swooning couch.

        Concerning your take on the alt right, is it always your habit to define a movement not by it’s leaders and their published writings but by the stinkiest trolls who lurk in the comments? Shall we judge Progressives the same way? I don’t think that would be fair. Strikes me as a disingenuous and backward way of trying to understand something, but if it’s demons and monsters you’re looking for I have no doubt you will find them. As you say, knock yourself out.

        Your post is an fine example of the anti-intellectualist myopia of the regressive left.

      • meursault1942 says:

        Hahaha! Holy shit, that’s hilarious–not only have you internalized the B4V talking points, you use the exact same verbiage and style to push them. Amazona must be super stoked to have you as her Mini-Me.

        OK, so noting that most members of the alt-right are racist is so very unfair to you. Let’s look at the leaders, you say. OK. let’s do that. Oh, look: They’re pretty fuckin’ racist (that, of course, being one example of a great many). And here’s the thing: They self-identify as such! They outright tell you that they only care about white* preservation, promotion, success, etc. (*for certain values of “white,” of course) and really, really do not like non-white people (including Jews, obviously). So if the leaders are racist, and the rank and file are racist, where’s the non-racist part, hmmm? Got any clues on that one? Or are you just going to whine about how mean and nasty and terrible it is to, you know, have a grasp of the obvious, not-at-all hidden racism of the alt-right?

        “Unable to deny the reality of race ‘realism.'” I love it. Next up: the “realism” of phrenology!

        I can’t wait for your next post. I’m sure it’ll be “racism is nowhere near as bad as pointing out and opposing racism!” You Trumpets love that one.

      • Rusty pretends to be unfamiliar with the so-called leaders of the alt-right and what they have said. Of course, they held a press conference a few days ago. You would think Rusty would have heard about that and that he would know what they said.

        But we don’t just have to rely on their own press conference. Here’s a sampling of the alt-right leaders’ own words (via their published writings, Rusty) over the past few years.

        “Martin Luther King Jr., a fraud and degenerate in his life, has become the symbol and cynosure of White Dispossession and the deconstruction of Occidental civilization. We must overcome!”

        —National Policy Institute column, January 2014

        “Immigration is a kind a proxy war—and maybe a last stand—for White Americans, who are undergoing a painful recognition that, unless dramatic action is taken, their grandchildren will live in a country that is alien and hostile.”

        —National Policy Institute column, February 2014

        “Since we are fighting for nothing less than the biological survival of our race, and since the vast bulk of Jews oppose us, we need to err on the side of caution and have no association with Jews whatsoever. Any genuine Jewish well-wishers will understand, since they know what their people are like better than we ever can. Saving our race is something that we will have to do ourselves alone.”

        —Greg Johnson, “White Nationalism & Jewish Nationalism,” August 2011

        “I oppose the Jewish diaspora in the United States and other white societies. I would like to see the white peoples of the world break the power of the Jewish diaspora and send the Jews to Israel, where they will have to learn how to be a normal nation.”

        —Greg Johnson, “White Nationalism & Jewish Nationalism,” August 2011

        “At the core of the JI [Jewish Identity] is a malevolent supremacy. This is the manifest in their rejection of outgroups who wish to participate and innovate traditional Jewish cultural activities. Why reject diversity and progress within your community if not a false feeling of ‘betterness’? The root of this problem is, of course, a sexual feeling of inferiority. Mighty psychosexual urges must not be downplayed within group dynamics. As a remedy to this, the JI must be infiltrated with foreign members to procreate with their men and women. That way, the deep psychological psychosis can be treated at the root.”

        —“A Critical Analysis of the Jewish Identity,” The Right Stuff, January 2016

        “The new left doctrine of racial struggle in favor of non-Whites only, a product of decolonization and the defeat of nationalists by egalitarians after WWII, must be repudiated and Whites must be allowed to take their own side in their affairs. A value system that says Whites are not allowed to have collective interests while literally every other identity group can do so and ought to do so is unacceptable.”

        —“The Fight for the Alt-Right: The Rising Tide of Ideological Autism Against Big-Tent Supremacy,” The Right Stuff, January 2016

        “This is our home and our kith and kin. Borders matter, identity matters, blood matters, libertarians and their capitalism can move to Somalia if they want to live without rules, in the West we must have standards and enforce them. The ‘freedom’ for other races to move freely into white nations is nonexistent. Stay in your own nations, we don’t want you here.”

        —Matthew Heimbach, “I Hate Freedom,” Traditionalist Youth Network, July 7, 2013

        “Those who promote miscegenation, usury, or any other forms of racial suicide should be sent to re-education centers, not tolerated.”

        —Matthew Heimbach, “I Hate Freedom,” Traditionalist Youth Network, July 7, 2013

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Ok, so rather than discuss ideas head on you prefer to cherry pick quotes out of context from people within a movement in order to brand those people as well as the entirety of the movement racist. That’s retarded, but I’ll engage you at your level.

        But first, let’s get something straight: I’m not here to defend every single person, idea or sound bite that comes out of the nebulous and ill-defined alt right movement. There are many different opinions and personalities within the movement and they don’t all agree with or endorse each other. So picking out several particularly incendiary quotes from a few of it’s members says nothing about either that group as a whole or the majority of Trump supporters. There are several concerns of the alt right which have merit and quite worthy of discussion, regardless of a few quotes by some of it’s members. I really shouldn’t have to explain this to adults, but here we are.

        But getting back to your preferred (only?) method of argumentation. Clinton and progressives support Black Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter supports Clinton. But Black Lives Matter are all horrible racists who advocate cop killing. Why? glad you asked:

        “Pigs in a Blanket, Fry ‘em like bacon!”

        –BLA activists marching down the streets of Minneapolis

        “Not just all lives (matter). Black lives. Please do not change the conversation by talking about how your life matters, too.

        The “tired trope that we are all the same,” Garza elaborates, serves only to “perpetuate a level of White supremacist domination.”

        –Alicia Garza, founder of BLM

        “If they go about their burden of whatever they said you’re doing, you pull your pistol out and you f**king bust that…I don’t give a f**k whether you knock ’em over, whether you run up on them, whatever you do, you better f**king take action!”

        –BLM protester at Portland rally

        “A pig is a pig that’s what I said, the only good pig is a pig that’s dead”

        –Black Panther protesters at Austin, Texas

        “Oink! Oink! Bang! Bang!”

        –Black Panther protesters in Austin, Texas

        “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now!”

        –BLM demonstrators in NY

        “Deck the Halls With Rows of Dead Cops”

        –BLM demonstrators in Portland

        I could go on, but why? In your world we’ve established that I support racists and you support racist cop killers. Feel better? Is that your idea of a productive conversation?

        Btw, many of the quotes you provide talk about race but are not actually racist, at least in my definition. And try switching out “black” for “white” and vice versa with some of them or picture them coming from a black person’s lips and I think many will magically transform into the noble, benevolent sentiments of an oppressed people to you guys. Too Rich!

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        “Next up: the “realism” of phrenology”

        So you deny the existence of variability and heritable traits, eh? Tell me genius, what other parts of Darwin’s theory do you disbelieve?

      • Nice attempt at deflection there, Rusty. Nobody was talking about Black Lives Matter or spouting their propaganda as you are with the alt-right. And also, these weren’t just a few random quotes from “some of its members” that Meursault and I brought up, which is what you did with BLM—what a laugh! These are quotes from the publications of of the acknowledged leaders of the alt-right and from their own freaking press conference just days ago. I mean, you criticized Meursault for “defining a movement not by it’s leaders and their published writings but by the stinkiest trolls who lurk in the comments.” Now you are presented with their published writings (which you probably read anyway), and you again cry foul. “Immigration is a kind a proxy war—and maybe a last stand—for White Americans, who are undergoing a painful recognition that, unless dramatic action is taken, their grandchildren will live in a country that is alien and hostile.” That’s exactly the reason you now support Trump. E.g., “I’m getting older and I have my kid’s future and the country they’ll inherit to think about. I think that can change your perspective a bit.” Sorry if you don’t like it brought up.

        Say, by the way, I noticed that your new pals at B4V didn’t take the bait. You put out your little comment about race realism almost a whole day ago. If only NeoClown weren’t banned from that site; he would’ve jumped on it. In any event, I really think enough time has passed that you should troll them again. The crickets are getting louder and louder over there and surely they are able to discuss such matters as adults, even when the tenor gets uncomfortable or icky. Please… help them lead the way for the rest of us. I’m sure it will be quite educational. We’re just retards, unable to cope, pretend adults.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        “I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

        Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor

        Bringing up a comparison is not a deflection Watson. And by doing so I’m just pointing out that you’re not talking about any issues here, not one. Your entire shtick is to label something racist so you won’t have to engage in any of the issues they present. Denounce a group for thoughtcrimes and you’re done. That’s pathetic and fascistic.

        “Immigration is a kind a proxy war—and maybe a last stand—for White Americans, who are undergoing a painful recognition that, unless dramatic action is taken, their grandchildren will live in a country that is alien and hostile.”

        I actually don’t have a huge problem with that quote. Explain how that’s racist to a native of France, England or Brussels who’s endured hardships or deaths related to unprecedented immigration. Those societies are suffering massive assimilation problems and terrorism is now the new normal; they are likely irreversibly altered. That doesn’t have to happen here. I like America. I like the traditional Western values of this country. I think it’s a great way for my kids to grow up and I want to keep it that way. Is that racist?

        Switch the script on this scenario. Picture a beautiful, small South American country that has indigenous natives stretching back hundreds of years. Say this country becomes desirable to North Americans and Canadians and they start flooding it to the point of changing the culture, values and way of life of the natives, who already have a rich historic culture of their own. Picture a tribal leader saying the quote above. Is he racist? I don’t think so. You see how consistent I am; that’s a good indication of rational thinking.

        Since I’m asking questions, any response to the one I posed at the bottom of this thread, or are you still puzzling it over?

        I didn’t set any bait, as you put it, at B4V. I posted a comment on what constitutes the alt right and race realism is a component. I don’t give a rat’s ass if anybody comments on that or not. I didn’t bring it up here either. M. did, and then presented with some facts won’t touch it with a ten foot pole.

      • Since I’m asking questions, any response to the one I posed at the bottom of this thread, or are you still puzzling it over?

        Yeah, but you don’t give a rat’s ass, so why bother? I’m perplexed at why you are even here given that you openly refer to us as retards and children. Anyway, if you don’t give a rat’s ass, I’ve got a baseball game to watch.

      • Okay, one more response and then I’m out. You say my entire shtick is to label something racist so I won’t have to engage in any of the issues they present. I think your entire schtick is to wrap racism in a pseudo-intellectual veneer. But it’s a good question as to how to define racism. I’d say people know it when they see it, even as most aren’t able to fully articulate it. I don’t claim to have any particular powers of articulation–and you have made it clear that we’re not even capable adults–but I’ll just throw these thoughts out there w.r.t. the so-called race realism science, which I call a pseudo-science because

        This isn’t about black hair vs. blonde hair. It’s about taking a thin strand of logic and expanding it into the idea that different races of human beings differ in fundamental ways, and that those differences are more important and compelling than our similarities. And in the process, it provides a handy crutch–a moral and ethical justification–for some people to oppress other people. People who promulgate this pseudo-science reject the notion that “all men are created equally,” meaning they don’t even believe in the ideal behind the creation of the United States. It makes it comfortable for them to ignore the ethical and moral implications of slavery and Apartheid and oppression–which you did here, by the way–and allows them to attempt to take the moral high ground in making such absurd arguments as slavery wasn’t that bad and that white Europeans were just as worse off as slaves. People use these pseudo-science arguments to maintain dominance over others and to maintain racist institutions such as, first, slavery, and then Jim Crow in America, and Apartheid in South Africa–all of which are obvious, de facto examples of racism enforced by the state. But believers in your pseudo science have historically used that pseudo-science to justify such constructs. That’s not just my opinion, but part of the historical record. Furthermore, this pseudo-science allows them to turn a blind eye to the worst refugee crisis since World War II because those refugees are inferior human beings. Ultimately, people use this pseudo-science out of fear and a desire to dominate. That is, ultimately for greed. And so they reach for the authoritarian.

        And no one gives a rat’s ass, so back to the game…

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Watson,

        You really have a serious problem following a conversation, don’t you? I said I didn’t give a rat’s ass if anyone commented on my mention of race realism. I never said or implied I didn’t give a rat’s ass about questions I was asking. And I’ve asked several of you on this thread. You’ve not answered one. That speaks volumes.

        Go ahead and call Trump and his supporters racist agin and call it a night. That seems to be all you’ve got.

      • I guess I’m only half paying attention. My bad. I thought your main complaint was, let’s see, that I merely label things racism without having to discuss it. Or something like that. I tried. I’m just not up to it I guess. I know your m.o. is to pose question after question and then complain when they aren’t all answered. I just don’t feel like searching for all the question marks.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        “I know your m.o. is to pose question after question and then complain when they aren’t all answered.”

        Er, it’s not my “m.o.” Watson, it’s standard practice in a political discussion.

        “I just don’t feel like searching for all the question marks.”

        Yes Watson, I bet you don’t. Even when I pointed out to you that one is at the very bottom of this thread. Simply too taxing to scroll down that page. Keep up with that intellectual rigor!

        Pseudo-intellectual? Pseudo-science? If you can refute the simple definition of race realism I’ve provided above then do it. I think you have an obligation to if you want to toss around the pseudo prefix. Otherwise, drop the “pseudo” stuff. Is that fair?

        But wow, that’s quite word salad you’ve got going on there. Just a few things pop out:

        You don’t really believe that all men are created equal, do you? You believe you have the brainpower of Hawking, the coordination of Messi and the cock of Ron Jeremy?

        I’ve never “ignored the ethical and moral implications of slavery and Apartheid and oppression”, here or anywhere else. That’s a bald faced lie, and shame on you for lying.

        We’ve had the discussion about white slaves before and I presented plenty of evidence that it was absolutely in the same ballpark as black slavery. They were both horrific shitshows. Was it a bit worse? A bit better? Some servants were better off than some slaves, some slaves better off than some servants? Who cares? Only Virtue signalers and people committed to perpetuating the Eternal Victimhood And Oppression Sweepstakes. Btw, I recall quite clearly that you were the one who blithely, even cheerily dismissed the horrific suffering poor indentured servants endured in the founding of this country. Shame on you for hypocrisy.

        Anther btw, you don’t need racism to explain slavery and oppression, economics and power appear to be much greater motivators. That’s why blacks were enslaving other blacks for thousands of years before America got in the game and continue to do so in some places in Africa to this day. That’s not just my opinion, but part of the historical record.

        Nobody’s talking about turning a blind eye to refugees in need. It’s just that some of us are talking about better solutions than just throwing open our borders. And it’s HIGHLY debatable how many of these swarms we see spreading across Europe to the best welfare states are true refugees in danger or merely economic migrants. One thing that’s not debatable is that they’re importing plenty restrictive, anti-Western ideas. That’s the funny thing about you progs, you’re welcoming in a group of people with such a backward view of human rights (on average) they make David Duke look like Noam Chomsky. Beats being called a racist in your world I guess.

      • Good grief, Rusty,

        Er, it’s not my “m.o.” Watson, it’s standard practice in a political discussion.

        Your m.o. is to respond to nearly every post by asking multiple questions. It happens every time. Then you gripe when they aren’t answered.

        The answer to your question at the end is that the chances of being killed or injured in a terrorist attack are about zero and would still be about zero even with increased immigration proposed by Secretary Clinton.

        Pseudo-intellectual? Pseudo-science? If you can refute the simple definition of race realism I’ve provided above then do it. I think you have an obligation to if you want to toss around the pseudo prefix. Otherwise, drop the “pseudo” stuff. Is that fair?

        Use Google.

        But wow, that’s quite word salad you’ve got going on there. Just a few things pop out:

        I warned you I wouldn’t be articulate enough to satisfy you.

        You don’t really believe that all men are created equal, do you? You believe you have the brainpower of Hawking, the coordination of Messi and the cock of Ron Jeremy?

        You know where the quotation “All men are created equal” comes from. I can’t believe you turned it into a discussion of Ron Jeremy. Racial realism is the antithesis of that ideal.

        I’ve never “ignored the ethical and moral implications of slavery and Apartheid and oppression”, here or anywhere else. That’s a bald faced lie, and shame on you for lying.

        It was brought up earlier in this thread. In your many replies you skipped over it.

        We’ve had the discussion about white slaves before and I presented plenty of evidence that it was absolutely in the same ballpark as black slavery.

        Yes, we did. I don’t agree with you conclusion.I think it is objectively and obviously false.

        Anther btw, you don’t need racism to explain slavery and oppression, economics and power appear to be much greater motivators.

        That’s true, but then those who justify slavery and oppression don’t generally admit that it’s about economics and power and resort to some other rationale, like racial realism. Furthermore, as it was practiced in the United States, it is obviously racist.

        Nobody’s talking about turning a blind eye to refugees in need.

        Donald Trump.

        Go hang out at B4V.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        A few observations:

        OK, you have a problem answering questions, I think we’ve established that now. Although, I would think that would be a stain on your debating ability, not mine.

        You’re also unable to explain why race realism is pseudo-science rather than just “science” but you presumably insist on using “pseudo” anyway. Another intellectual blunder for Watson.

        I’ll just state it unequivocally: Anybody who believes all men are created equal is a complete imbecile. Now, if we’re talking about our Constitution, that phrase has been interpreted to mean all men deserve equal protection under the law, a bedrock idea of our Democracy, and a fundamental difference with Sharia law I might add.

        I notice you are also unable to justify your lie that I’ve “ignored the ethical and moral implications of slavery and Apartheid and oppression”. I’m glad everybody now knows that’s a lie. Although, in your world merely bringing up race realism is a five alarm hate crime worthy of thumbscrews so maybe you’re referring to something like that. Who knows? You certainly can’t explain it.

        You can continue to believe that indentured servitude was a joyful, symbiotic apprenticeship if you like, just as most of us were taught in grade school, but you would be wrong. And you didn’t deny that you breezily laughed at the death, maiming and suffering of countless lives under the system.

        Wow, we’ve established that slavery in America had a racist component to it. Something we both agree with. Common ground I guess, and fascinating ancient history. Now if only you were capable of talking about any racial issue in present day America, including scientific ones fer chrissakes, without clutching your pearls and gasping “Slavery!”

        Trump has proposed pledging money and working with Gulf States to resettle refugees on or closer to their native lands, a completely sensible solution. As a region stabilizes they are able to return home. Hardly what I would call a blind eye.

        Look Ma, no questions!

      • Rusty, you’ve called me a retard, not an adult, unable to cope, referred to my responses as word salads, described me as a complete imbecile (by the way, the phrase “all men are created equal” is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution, written by that imbecile Thomas Jefferson), and on and on. Again, why are you here?

        Also, Cluster, good to hear from you, although you do it in a manner in which I am unable to respond. That’s kind of chicken shit, if you ask me. But I gotta give you credit about one thing: You were right way back when you noted how similar Rusty and Amazona are. I’m sure Rusty is eager to talk with you about his racial realism theories. He brought it up in the very thread in which you’re commenting about us. By all means, have the discussion with him. We’ll all sit back and take a lesson from people who really know how to do Internet debates. I’m sincere. You all should have the conversation.

        As for Rusty and the alt-right, he said, “There are several concerns of the alt right which have merit and quite worthy of discussion.” On your blog he said, ” I don’t think the alt right as a false construct but a very real groundswell; I think it’s a somewhat nebulous group of people organized around several basic principles: Immigration (secure borders, reduction and discouragement of illegals, tightly controls or at perhaps temporary bans); race realism; anti-PC; anti-identity politics; anti-social engineering; anti-globalism; anti-multiculticulturalism; support for Donald Trump who gives expression to these things.” He’s describing his own beliefs.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Watson,

        For the record, I’ve called your method of argumentation childish and retarded, not you. There is actually a big difference. I also never called you a complete imbecile but stated that if you believe all men are created equal you are one. I’m afraid my understanding of reality dictates that I stand by that. If you think we’re all created equal, please explain and justify that belief, maybe you’ll convince me.

        But as for your tone trolling in general, this entire conversation began with you posting:

        “Who woulda thunk it? Rusty and Amazona ganging up on the personal insults. What a charming couple. They’re all saying it.”

        Now, since we’re being sensitive, did you mean “charming” lterally or sarcastically? Sarcastically of course. The definition of sarcasm is “the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.” Synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, scorn. And you have the fucking balls to whine about my tone. Grow a pair.

        Why am I hear? To try to discuss and debate ideas. This is an interesting and unique election, we’re on different sides of the coin on several issues and I thought it would be interesting to hash that out, particularly since we used to see eye to eye on most issues. No luck. I’m met with derision, mockery, ridicule, scorn, but no ideas or arguments.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Well, even so, you set the tone the previous week, no? And even starting where you like, I think you’ll notice the sneering coming from you and M. first. Christ, is this what you really like to talk about? You must be a riot at parties. Speaking of riots, I hear theres another black one occurring in Charlotte.

      • meursault1942 says:

        “I think your entire schtick is to wrap racism in a pseudo-intellectual veneer.”

        I don’t know that it’s his entire schtick, but it is useful to recap how, exactly, we got here.

        Rusty claimed that “race realism” is a real thing and totally separate from racism. He said this as part of his larger claim that the alt-right that makes up the core of Trump’s support is called “racists and xenophobes and sexists for merely existing and having the gall to speak up for themselves.”

        We pointed out that “race realism” is just a lame warming-over of good old scientific racism (the tenets of which, by the way, have been shown to be a sham by…science) and that the alt-right are described as racist, xenophobic, and sexist because they say, do, and believe racist, xenophobic, and sexist things. We then pointed out examples of alt-righters saying and doing such things. Rusty said it wasn’t fair to do so and that the movement should only be defined by its leaders. So then we showed a bunch of examples of alt-right leaders espousing some very racist beliefs–and doing so unequivocally and proudly. Rusty responded that this too was unfair because we somehow “cherry-picked” these quotes (as though there are exculpatory quotes in which these people recant their views that we just ignored).

        Gee, it’s almost as though Rusty will make whatever excuses he can to avoid confronting the racism that alt-right leaders and followers alike claim is integral to their movement! All he needs now is to do a performance of “Where’s WHITE Entertainment Television? When’s WHITE History Month? Huh? Huh? There’s the real racism!” and he will have gone full Breitbart. (Hint: Never go full Breitbart.)

        And by the way, he’s doing all of this whining and dodging and excuse-making in order to defend his support for an ignorant, hate-driven, failure-prone, dumpster fire of a human being with no readily observable redeeming qualities and a pathological inability to be even the slightest bit truthful who is running an openly racist and fascist campaign.

        No wonder he finds the intellectual kiddie table that is B4V more comforting.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        That’s an interesting synopsis. Here’s mine:

        You asked me for a definition of race realism, I provided one, you then claimed it’s unscientific pseudoscience. I asked you to explain and provide evidence but you mysteriously refused to do so, and still do. Because in M. world, just claiming something is so makes it real!

        You and Watson then made a great show of providing incendiary quotes from various people connected with the alt right movement in order to self righteously declare that the entire movement and Trump are icky racists. I pointed out how defective and bigoted it is to condemn a large group of people merely by presenting several quotes from a few of it’s members. To illustrate my point I then proved (by your standards) how the BLM protesters are all violent cop killers based on select quotes from their members. Apparently, that lesson sailed over your head as you’ve failed to mention it and continue to tout the wisdom of your initial approach.

        Tell you what, let’s pretend I concede your point: the alt right is racist. What does that get you?

        The problem with shouting “racism” at everything is that racism is not only a very subjective thing but exists on a very long scale of degree. There are people who recognize the science of race realism, people who don’t believe that all men are created equal, people who prefer not to live next to others of a different race, people who bemoan the abolition of slavery, people who murder others based on their race–all may be considered racist by different people.

        So to rely on the talisman of “racism” as a discussion ender is actually pretty juvenile if you have any appreciation for nuance whatsoever.

        I’ll also point out that having racist views (wherever they exist on the scale of degree) is not illegal in America, and I personally don’t believe that the opinions of “racists” of the milder variety should be automatically discounted. We (or maybe I should speak only for myself) don’t do this in most other walks of life. But perhaps you prefer a scarlet “R” for those that disagree with you, then you don’t have to substantiate your beliefs. Seems to be your wheelhouse. Child.

  7. rustybrown2014 says:

    I know, I never thought I’d see the day. Seriously.

    But as far as personal insults, if you followed the thread you’d be aware that Bob was the first one out of the gate to start insulting people, multiple times. My response, while snarky, was tame by comparison. By faulting me for this you’re playing the same dishonest game they’ve always played: pretending someone who responds to a person insult with a quip of their own is the real offender.

  8. rustybrown2014 says:

    Thats supposed to be “personal” insult in the last sentence.

    Seriously, they used to pull that shit on me all the time; Ama would be insulting me for days and when I would respond the least bit in kind I’d be the one banned as a troll. Now you’re doing that too? Lame.

    • Really? I think you need to re-read the thread ’cause you’re wrong. And yes, they used to pull that shit on you all the time. The only reason they don’t now is because you’re on their side, so now you get to join in the personal insults. Woo hoo!. It’s not like anyone over there has changed their stripes. Anyway, off to a day of fun and adventure. See ya.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        You reread it; I know what I wrote and what was written to me. But I’m not as thin skinned as you so it really doesn’t bother me much. In my experience, people who are ‘tone trolling’ are always deflecting from their inability to argue their positions, especially when they’re complaining about minor, snarky comments that don’t bother most adults.

        Have fun hang gliding, mountain climbing, or whatever it is you’re doing. Yolo.

      • You have a good one, too.

  9. rustybrown2014 says:

    Looks like the Trump train is gaining steam. Anybody here thinking about getting on board?

  10. Hey Rusty, the appearance of Trump “gaining steam” is hardly a reason to get on board. But to answer you question directly, nothing Trump has done in the past several months has shown me that he is any more fit to serve as president of the United States than before. In a nutshell, I think he’s a dangerous clown.

    A few other tidbits:

    Contrary to Amazona’s perception, the term “alt right” was not “completely manufactured” by progressives. It comes from the alt right themselves. Amazona is just ignorant. That you have taken to railing against so-called political correctness certainly puts you among the alt-right folks, but your claim that they support “anti-identity politics” is simply false; they are the epitome of identity politics. It is refreshing, I suppose, that you have escaped the us v. them mentality, but of course, none of the people you are now in league with have done that.

    As for the video Spook posted the other day, I’m a little surprised that you find it so effecting. You are intelligent enough to realize when you are being manipulated. And now we have the lunacy of Amazona propagating the claim that Hillary Clinton faked a campaign rally in North Carolina last week. Never mind that there there are still photos from the event and… oh for God sakes, if this is what they’re trafficking in, then no wonder they support Donald Trump—a man who has never met a conspiracy theory he didn’t like. Also, Rusty, just so you know, the moon landing was fake, all those months of record high global temperatures were measured with skewed thermometers, Barack Obama was born in Kenya, Donald Trump is a brilliant business man, and on and on. Where does it end, my friend?

    • rustybrown2014 says:

      Watson,

      First of all, I’m not “in league” with anybody. And when I was characterizing the alt right as being anti-identity politics I should have specified they are against the identity politics that are endlessly obsessed about and championed by the regressive left and the media. I thought a knowledgable reader would infer that, but maybe not. You are right, technically the alt right itself is an identity political movement, but it’s also the only one that is presently reviled as irredeemably deplorable racists and xenophobes and sexists for merely existing and having the gall to speak up for themselves.

      As for the video, why are you surprised I find it affecting? Of course I recognize the propagandistic selective editing of it to emphasize its message, I’m able to take that into account and judge the content. But what about the video is false? And if it’s not false, why do you not find it affecting? It’s a highlight real (hardly a comprehensive one) of the effects of sudden, massive third world immigration on a continent that I think a reasonable person should find alarming. How is it that you can watch it and shrug?

      Don’t bother lumping me together with Ama and some of her nuttier assertions. Still sticking to tarring the opposition by associations, eh? If you have a problem with what she says, take it up with her.

  11. rustybrown2014 says:

    Btw, some trio of terrorist attacks yesterday, huh? Or excuse me, “apparent” terrorist attacks as your candidate prefers to say. Here’s a question for the group: Will a large increase of third world Muslim emigration to our country make such attacks more likely or less likely in our children’s future? No qualifiers please, just “more” or “less” will do. And be honest!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s