tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post2617937630959653205..comments2024-03-29T03:57:26.974-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: DuhGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-58800415857375829492016-11-15T10:18:39.605-05:002016-11-15T10:18:39.605-05:00People should see what VoxDay's commenters wri...People should see what VoxDay's commenters write to me when they want to run me off. This stuff is pretty mild in comparison to the highest levels of internet meme factory propaganda in group outing.<br /><br />Very effective against problem children on the Left though that need their safe spaces. A minor slight annoyance to me, as I'm mostly concerned with data mining, not persuading people.Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-54738359822372555072016-11-13T16:14:17.032-05:002016-11-13T16:14:17.032-05:00Have we run her off? That would be too bad.
Eric...Have we run her off? That would be too bad.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-57193401391966465322016-11-13T12:36:16.813-05:002016-11-13T12:36:16.813-05:00Liza to Gringo re Obamacare lies
Of all the things...Liza to Gringo re Obamacare lies<br /><b>Of all the things that you could try and point to as "vile" behavior why do you choose that?</b><br />I just happened to see the Instapundit video with the multiple times Obama informed us rubes that if we liked our health care plans we could keep them. No, that was not the first time I was aware Obama had said that.<br /><br />Regarding who benefits from Obamacare, I suggest you peruse this.<a href="http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/10/01/obamacare-enriches-only-the-health-insurance-giants-and-their-shareholders/&refURL=&referrer=" rel="nofollow"> ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders</a> If this is the case, the blame is not on the insurance companies, but on those who wrote Obamacare, made public statements in favor of Obamacare, and voted for Obamacare. in it.<br /><br />I don't blame you for not making any further responses, as there is so much to respond to. Gringonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-15564078040782728242016-11-12T04:13:33.755-05:002016-11-12T04:13:33.755-05:00Oh, certainly some of those who were really pushin...Oh, certainly some of those who were really pushing on the principal to address the "crisis" were all about the virtue signalling, well, that and apparently some were real drama queens- though one was a part black, but you'd have no idea until she told you. The mixed/minority folks, and to be fair many of the whites too, were much more reasonable, concerned that we shouldn't make more of it than it was (just kids either being dumb, or unaware) so as not to create an unwarranted concern among the kids, and to not create a potent weapon for bullies if this was overplayed, as was I, and also, just more understanding, I think, that this was nothing in the scheme of things. Probably because we knew what real racism was, either personally or through our parents.<br /><br />As is usual with these things, there was a very emotional, very loud core driving an issue that most people, even here, disagreed with at least partly, but the sane, quiet folks never get heard. I learned that when we got wind of someone going all crazy on some issue, it was important to let the principal know we were on her side (because they always think the school isn't doing enough), and to give her the ability to tell someone 'hey, I've got other parents that don't want what you do', so as to help balance out the nuts.douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03241790925053112959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-39356563996428824152016-11-11T12:36:25.018-05:002016-11-11T12:36:25.018-05:00White guilt, I suppose.
Nothing so honest. Just ...<i>White guilt, I suppose.</i><br /><br />Nothing so honest. Just virtue signaling for their own egos.<br /><br />Or maybe not; you know those folks better than I. But I've had a bellyful of such PC pollution.<br /><br />I'd be curious what the non-whites/mixed heritage ones thought of these outbursts.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-71313200242388663852016-11-11T08:52:07.049-05:002016-11-11T08:52:07.049-05:00Of course, I think it was here someone mentioned (...<i>Of course, I think it was here someone mentioned (Grim maybe?) that 'White' was a recent term, and one borne of a desire to see unity with the newly immigrated Italians and Irish...</i><br /><br />That's close to what I said, yes. Our current sense of the term "white" developed out of the last mass immigration crisis, which gave rise to intense social suppression of Italians and Irish and Germans, etc. The assimilation of everyone into the category called "white" was the result. <br /><br />The category itself is somewhat older than their assimilation into it; I think that the evidence shows that these white/black racial categories arose as an excuse for reintroducing slavery to a Christian Europe that had banned the practice during the High Middle Ages. Wolfram von Eschenbach doesn't recognize them, and neither does Malory, although both are aware of (and feature prominently and quite honorably) black characters in their stories. It looks as if there were a number of black citizens in European nations during the High Middle Ages who were treated as certainly quite exotic but not inferior -- much as I was when I lived in China. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-10259642135074267942016-11-11T02:22:16.493-05:002016-11-11T02:22:16.493-05:00You know, it's funny- in a recent kerfuffle at...You know, it's funny- in a recent kerfuffle at my daughters elementary school regarding some racially inappropriate things said between kids (not racist slanders, more along the lines of just not yet knowing how to handle racial talk and hearing so much on their parents TVs or radios (or perhaps from their parents as they spoke of the threat of President Trump). There was a parent meeting about this, and funnily, most of the parents of non-white or mixed heritage were pretty calm about it, but it was the white parents that were really in an uproar. They thought this was their big chance to fight racism (as if our little elementary school had started a blossoming youth chapter of the KKK or something). White guilt, I suppose. It was also rather amusing to hear people publically say things like 'well, at least we're all progressives here', just assuming that everyone <i>here</i> was like them ideologically. The last thing they want is diversity- at least beyond skin color.<br /><br />Of course, I think it was here someone mentioned (Grim maybe?) that 'White' was a recent term, and one borne of a desire to see unity with the newly immigrated Italians and Irish, who at the time were not seen as like other Americans- white as they all were to modern eyes. It's an outdated idea, this whole concept of race- something that has flowed with migration and cultural patterns over the millennia since before recorded history.douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03241790925053112959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-76662781817230291012016-11-11T00:47:24.078-05:002016-11-11T00:47:24.078-05:00Hi, Cass! Good to see you!
Hi, Liza, welcome to t...Hi, Cass! Good to see you!<br /><br />Hi, Liza, welcome to the Hall! It's a bit rough and tumble here, but we're all ladies and gentlemen, at least, mostly, in a rather neo-medieval sense. Well, except Ymar. We're still not entirely sure about him, and he probably likes it that way. Anyway, you'll get used to it.<br /><br />You asked: <i>How many of the commenters here have frequent, friendly contact with minorities?</i><br /><br /><i>Are you describing interactions with other white people?</i><br /><br />It's an interesting assumption that we are all white and that all white people are interchangeable and faceless units of a community instead of unique individuals with unique experiences, values, and aspirations. With minorities, too, you seem to assume it is more valuable to know a generic black person than my friend Saud.<br /><br />I guess your experience of both whites and non-whites is very different from mine.<br /><br />But let me ask you in return, do you have frequent, friendly contact with people who are two generations older or younger than you?<br /><br />How about people with whom you have deep political disagreements? Or deep religious disagreements?<br /><br />What about military personnel? Police? Firefighters? EMTs? Anyone whose job is to risk their lives for the community or country?<br /><br />Or people in very different employment situations? (E.g., if you are an employee, with people who are self-employed or who own small businesses.)<br /><br />I ask because those are some of the commitments to real diversity. White, black, Asian, whatever. That's just a skin deep commitment.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-55869423519825075562016-11-10T23:23:02.629-05:002016-11-10T23:23:02.629-05:00It is an issue that affects almost everyone in thi...<i>It is an issue that affects almost everyone in this country unless people are independently wealthy. </i><br /><br />This is plainly untrue. My wife and I had no health insurance--by choice--in the pre-Obamacare days. We paid cash for her biopsy and her subsequent bilateral mastectomy to take care of her breast cancer. At the time, too, we were on the boundary of the Federal Poverty Guideline.<br /><br />What would be Obama's motivation for lying about Obamacare? Others have mentioned some motivations. Here's another: his legacy. The legacy that he said he'd take it as a personal insult if a favored (by him and his identity politics) group of Americans didn't come out and vote for it. The legacy that he put, in so many words, on the ballot in one of his last speeches of the campaign. Obamacare is at the center of his legacy.<br /><br />Even calling Obamacare health insurance is, at best, a mischaracterization. Insurance is a transfer of risk in return for a risk-based fee. Obamacare has utterly destroyed that; it's mandated coverage for a mandated fee.<br /><br /><i>Of all the things that you could try and point to as "vile" behavior why do you choose that?</i><br /><br />Here are some others, then. It is mainstream Left, not fringe groups, that so blatantly and insistently play identity politics and has done so the last several years, not just in the recent campaign. The Left insists that conservative women are sluts who should be subject to gang rape--preferably by well-endowed black men--or their mouths held open and crapped in. There was no blowback against that on the Left. It is the mainstream Left who demand that blacks vote Left--Conservative blacks are traitors to their race (!) or Uncle Toms or Oreos. There's no blowback against that from the Left.<br /><br />It's the mainstream Left that insists that Tea Partiers are racist and are tea baggers, not fringe groups.<br /><br />It was the Democrat Hillary Clinton who called millions of Americans irredeemable and deplorable--for the heinous crime of supporting Trump and not her. There was no blowback against that from the Left. Clinton didn't even apologize for that; although the Left does dishonestly masquerade her subsequent remarks as one.<br /><br />It's the mainstream Left who insist there's nothing wrong with Clinton's cavalier attitude (if not outright criminal behavior) regarding security with her unprotected private server on which she conducted State Department official business. It's Clinton and the mainstream Left who deny that she handled classified information through that unprotected server.<br /><br />It's Clinton who lied about the source of the attacks on our Benghazi consulate and the associated murders of four Americans--and the mainstream Left who back her up on those lies.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-69646624001487534832016-11-10T22:47:17.263-05:002016-11-10T22:47:17.263-05:00Texan99
I think people upset by Trump's win ar...Texan99<br /><b>I think people upset by Trump's win are trying to make themselves feel better by explaining the phenomenon away by a magically incantatory charge of racism--like a Puritan attributing every evil in life to the Devil's influence over his neighbors.</b><br /><br />My hometown's vote for Barack Obama was in the 60s in 2012. Hillary Clinton's vote in my hometown was in the 40s, fourteen percent lower than what Obama got in 2012. It is difficult to see racism in that vote. If you believe there was sexism in that vote, I would inform you that my hometown has voted for female candidates for governor, multiple times. Gringonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-81703217929148715272016-11-10T22:30:36.561-05:002016-11-10T22:30:36.561-05:00Liza
So, I don't see it as vile behavior beca...Liza<br /><br /><b>So, I don't see it as vile behavior because I don't believe that Obama knew that private medical insurance companies would do what they have done</b><br />To claim that Obama and his administration didn't know how private medical insurance companies would respond to the bill is naive. Congress does extensive research on consequences of bills. Gruber got paid $400,000 to model the consequences, for starters. The insurance companies were merely responding to how the bill was written. As such, not being able to keep your health insurance is a consequence of the bill, making it deceitful to blame losing insurance on the private insurance companies.<br /><br />For argument's sake, let's assume that Obama really did believe that you could keep your health insurance. As this was decidedly not the result of Obamacare, this would indicate that Obama had no idea about what was contained in the bill he was so intensely pushing. We are back to an old argument in conservative circles about Obama- knave or fool. Knave if he realized that you could not keep your insurance; fool if he believed you could keep your insurance.<br /><br />Either way, the POTUS does not come across very well.Gringonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-9763739251905925472016-11-10T22:28:40.729-05:002016-11-10T22:28:40.729-05:00I had good insurance in the individual market, mai...I had good insurance in the individual market, maintained at considerable cost and trouble. The ACA made it illegal for my insurance company to continue to offer it to me. The Obamacare policy with which I had to replace it cost three times as much, and degenerated after only one year to an HMO. Competition has almost completed disappeared, so I have only worsening choices and prices to look forward to.<br /><br />The President didn't lie about what insurance companies would do. He lied about how his own bill worked, and how his own agency would write rules to implement it, specifically how the grandfathering rules would be written and enforced deliberately to disqualify existing coverage. The email traffic from that period shows that he knew better and was not speaking merely out of ignorance, as appalling as mere ignorance would have been. I find it remarkable how many people expect me to support the ACA on the theory that it has provided coverage to people who lacked coverage, but who can't or won't face the problem of millions of people in the individual market, like me, who had it and were deprived of it. I seriously doubt the law could have passed even that idiot Congress if it had been honestly described as "taking insurance from these people so we can give it to these other people." It took lies to pass it, and they duly relied on lies. It's not something I'll forget, or chalk up to politics as usual, or interpret as a well-meaning mistake.<br /><br />I agree it's a good sign that people in my real life don't make the ignorant mistake of attributing racism, sexism, or homophobia to me. It doesn't change the prevalence of that thoughtless, lazy attitude in many of Trump's opponents I encounter online. I just went and looked at another dozen examples in my Facebook feed: "Trump election proves it was a myth we had entered a post-racial America" and so on. Tired old garbage. Having hated racism all my life, I never thought I'd reach the point where one more whining remark on the subject would lead me only to roll my eyes. I don't have the patience any more to sort out when complaints actually have something to do with racism and when someone has just learned that he can shut down any discussion by invoking that magic word.<br /><br />I think people upset by Trump's win are trying to make themselves feel better by explaining the phenomenon away by a magically incantatory charge of racism--like a Puritan attributing every evil in life to the Devil's influence over his neighbors. They'd do better to open their eyes to how they lost so much support in what ought to have been a cakewalk of an election. Clinton lost to Donald friggin' Trump, for Pete's sake. It takes an unbelievably contemptible Dem candidate to pull that off. His supporters know exactly what's the matter with him, and it wasn't enough to motivate them to swallow her, or to ignore the ravages their government (and the smug chattering class) have wrought in their lives in recent years.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-69154743241936124832016-11-10T22:14:39.861-05:002016-11-10T22:14:39.861-05:00Liza
What would even be the motivation for Obama t...Liza<br /><b>What would even be the motivation for Obama to purposely lie like that? What would be the up side to it? </b><br />Very simple: get support for Obamacare. It worked. <br /><a href="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/223578-obamacare-architect-lack-of-transparency-helped-law-pass" rel="nofollow">ObamaCare architect: 'Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass.</a> <br /><i>An architect of the federal healthcare law said last year that a "lack of transparency" and the "stupidity of the American voter" helped Congress approve ObamaCare.<br /><br />In a clip unearthed Sunday, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Jonathan Gruber appears on a panel and discusses how the reform earned enough votes to pass.He suggested that many lawmakers and voters didn't know what was in the law or how its financing worked, and that this helped it win approval. <br /><br /><b>"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. "And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."</b><br /><br />Gruber made the comment while discussing how the law was "written in a tortured way" to avoid a bad score from the Congressional Budget Office. He suggested that voters would have rejected ObamaCare if the penalties for going without health insurance were interpreted as taxes, either by budget analysts or the public. <br /><br />"If CBO scored the [individual] mandate as taxes, the bill dies," Gruber said. <br /><br />"If you had a law that made it explicit that healthy people are going to pay in and sick people are going to get subsidies, it would not have passed," he added. <br /><br /></i><br />What is lack of transparency? Hiding things so they won't be discovered. In effect, lying. Recall Obama saying he was going to be the transparent President. Or do you recall that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-35941379180482533692016-11-10T21:23:36.207-05:002016-11-10T21:23:36.207-05:00Um. There is no possible way that I can respond to...Um. There is no possible way that I can respond to the lengthy flurry of comments at this moment. I have read them and will try to respond to things over the next day, but I haven't ignored them.<br /><br />I'll hit a few quick ones right now.<br /><br /><b>I think it's partly because on the right, politics is politics, not the center of our lives, so we don't need politicians to be our exemplars- we're grateful when that's possible, but politicians are, well, politicians- I don't expect too much from them as a class</b><br /><br />I am still, technically, a registered republican. I was an evangelical for many, many years. I can tell you that in my experience in the south at that time, and as an evangelical, this was/is(?) simply not true. If politics was just politics to everyone on the right, the world would look very different. Many evangelicals have tried desperately to paint Trump as an exemplar, finding all kinds of ways to excuse his behavior. Granted, evangelicals are only one part of "the right," but they still bring a lot of votes.<br /><br />Gringo,<br /><br />I am not sure how to respond to you. You seem to believe that Obama purposely and willfully lied rather than thinking that he was simply wrong. Obamacare sucks not because of the government but because private insurance companies are private and owe nothing to anybody and exist only to make a profit, just like every hospital, clinic, doctor, testing facility etc. It's one of the reasons our medical system is so completely screwed up and expensive. Our country, at this moment, does not view health care as a public good. It is viewed as a business. Obamacare tried to walk the line between business and government health care. It is the worst of both worlds in many ways. And yet, for some people who had no way to get insurance it has been incredibly helpful.<br /><br />So, I don't see it as vile behavior because I don't believe that Obama knew that private medical insurance companies would do what they have done. You could say he was naive. You could say that he didn't understand the complexities of the health system. You could say that he should have known better. Even if all those things are/were true it is not the way that you are currently portraying it.<br /><br />What would even be the motivation for Obama to purposely lie like that? What would be the up side to it? <br /><br />Of all the things that you could try and point to as "vile" behavior why do you choose that?<br /><br />Texan99 <br />It's interesting that all of the comments that have made you upset are from people you don't know in real life. I would say that's a good thing. <br /><br />Once again ACA/Obamacare has come up. You mention how much you want it repealed.<br /><br />I don't understand the hatred for it because I know so many people who have struggled because of medical issues and the inability to get coverage or afford care and prescriptions for year before Obamacare, up through its implementation and now. It is an issue that affects almost everyone in this country unless people are independently wealthy. <br />Lizahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04302860987923564528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-41548187627463370582016-11-10T20:04:09.455-05:002016-11-10T20:04:09.455-05:00Liza
What I think Krugman and those like me who v...Liza<br /><br /><b>What I think Krugman and those like me who voted for Hillary "don't understand" about the country is the segment of the population that has been supporting him from the very beginning. Many of those excited supporters have said and proposed some very vile things. </b><br /><br />Speaking of <i>"saying and proposing some very vile things,"</i> consider the <a href="https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/248926/" rel="nofollow">36 Times Obama Said You Could Keep Your Health Plan.</a> In my book, it is very vile for the POTUS to lie, and lie repeatedly, about proposed legislation. <br /><br /><br /><b>Of course, any party or group of supporters is going to have a segment of people who are fringe or a little "off" or more extreme than the rest of the group. So, I get that too.What is different, in my mind, is how readily the larger population of conservative voters were willing to accept this type of behavior. There was very little backlash within the larger party about that.</b><br /><br />I noticed that <i>"the larger population of Democrat voters were willing to accept this type of behavior,"</i>, i.e., the behavior being the POTUS's repeatedly lying about Obamacare, when some time after Obamacare was passed it became evident that no, one could NOT keep one's health plan.<i> "There was very little backlash within the larger party about that." </i>No, there wasn't.<br /><br />Please note that this <b>vile behavior</b>,the repeated lying about Obamacare, did not come from an outlier,from some fringe group, but from the very top: the POTUS himself. And once it became public knowledge that the POTUS had repeatedly lied about Obamacare, there was nary a peep from the Democrat side of the aisle. Just business as usual. No backlash at all. All in a good cause, apparently.Gringonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-64654759807113197312016-11-10T18:00:13.874-05:002016-11-10T18:00:13.874-05:00I had a really nice, long comment ready then Blogg...I had a really nice, long comment ready then Blogger ate it, then I had to step away, so several points I was going to make have been made. Anyway, I'll add this:<br /><br /><i>"It's not that someone like me can't "understand" fellow Americans. It that someone like me can't understand why people would choose Trump as their champion. He is not "one of the people." He and those like him are just like the Clintons, using his power to get what he wants because he can."</i><br /><br />I think it's partly because on the right, politics is politics, not the center of our lives, so we don't need politicians to be our exemplars- we're grateful when that's possible, but politicians are, well, politicians- I don't expect too much from them as a class. It's also partly that many have felt that the GOP has been largely impotent, and needed a fighter who was effective. Think Clint Eastwood's character in "High Plains Drifter". He's coarse, different, and a 'bad' guy, but he's effective, and the only hope they have, because so far no one has delivered for them, and they're up against a vicious enemy.<br /><br />You mentioned fearfulness and working class neighborhoods vs. gated communities, and living as I do in a very progressive, blue community on a hill surrounded by Barrios (though largely now gentrifying into hipster havens) just outside downtown Los Angeles, I have to say that the fairly well off progressives here tend to be the most fearful of going 'down there' and of people coming up here- although to be honest there's some reason for that if you check the police reports. I personally find the working class folks (though that's sometimes hard to define around here) to be the more sane and normal folks who are more tolerant, and frankly, more fun to be around. Being prepared to defend yourself isn't the same as being fearful. It's like saying if you buy fire insurance for your house you're fearful of a house fire even though the statistics say you're highly unlikely to need the insurance.<br /><br />Anyway, I hope it doesn't seem like we're piling on, but we're a lively bunch here. Certainly we welcome the varied point of view, and the discussion. Welcome to the Hall!<br /><br /><br />douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03241790925053112959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-35355174913096814732016-11-10T17:48:36.111-05:002016-11-10T17:48:36.111-05:00And of course Benghazi was an intentional thing St...And of course Benghazi was an intentional thing State did to send weapons to ISIL and Syrian terrorists. Of course it was. Many Leftist operations are intentional, not "mistakes born of incompetence". This goes all the way back to whether Hussein was amoral or sociopathic or just too stupid to lead.<br /><br />I don't think stupidity is his problem. Evil is Hussein's problem.<br /><br />Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-79682573220129388752016-11-10T17:46:02.473-05:002016-11-10T17:46:02.473-05:00You can see what became of Iraq as a consequence. ...<b>You can see what became of Iraq as a consequence. And Syria. The whole Middle East, really. </b><br /><br />The Left was never, ever going to allow Iraq and Afghanistan to be "liberated", no matter who was President post 2008. You saw that with the IRS in action too vis a vis the Tea Party. They will scorch earth anyone who tries to follow or counter the Left, including foreign Iraqis fighting their Islamic Jihad allies. I had that belief back in 2007, back when Petraeus and others believed Iraq was a victory and would continue to be. I knew otherwise, however. I just didn't write or say much of anything about it.<br /><br />State Department sabotaged OIF once, they can do it again.<br /><br />Unfortunately, not even I know all the details about why I believed the Left was so powerful and dangerous back then. Thus I could not explain it. But even if I could, I doubt anyone else would have understood or agreed. <br /><br />However, Clinton's record on sabotaging Iraq and being a disciple of Alinsky, that was easily known. I did not underestimate the power of the Leftist alliance back then, even though I failed to get enough evidence to prove my case. Well now we don't have to worry about that. Iraq and ISIL proves my case, for what good it does.<br /><br />Perhaps it is too much to hope for that people stop underestimating the power of the Leftist alliance and treat people like Alinsky with a bit more caution and respect. But knowing what I know of humans, that is a foolish hope. Hope and Change. Assuming Trum even gets to DC alive...<br /><br /><b>Why the US ever decided to oust Qaddafi, after he agreed to suspend his WMD programs, I cannot figure out-</b><br /><br />Qaddafi worked with Bush2 to destroy AQ. That's not something the Left ever forgives, you attacking their allies. Do you think the Left forgave the Vietnamese for aiding Americans against the Left's Soviet allies? No, they did not, hence Fall of Saigon.<br /><br />Qaddafi was also said to be going into a gold standard and making his own African bank. That would counter globalism and the federal reserve, so Clinton bribes might be part of it too. Pay to Play, yeah, making money passively is great for the Clintons. Only a few people have to die, right, good turn around all in all.<br /><br />Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-21007698136902663482016-11-10T17:24:58.040-05:002016-11-10T17:24:58.040-05:00Liza
I ask the question because the comments here ...Liza<br /><b>I ask the question because the comments here generally have the same about the same point of view. There is a prominent sentiment that people voting for Trump are tired of being associated with racism and sexism. </b><br /><br />I would also add that people voting for Trump are tired of the attacks on Trump supporters. Perhaps the most recent example: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmljpCj27tk" rel="nofollow">Black Men ATTACK AND BEAT White Man for Supporting Trump!!!!! </a> [I copied the title]<br /><br />This is far from the first example I have seen of Trump supporters being attacked, though it is the first one I believe I have seen of blacks being the attackers. From what I can tell, nearly all of the attacks related to politics this year have been on Trump supporters.<br /><br />The narrative of many Democrats was that Trump was bringing Fascism to the US, but the examples of gangs attacking those of opposing political views- a prime element of the ascension to power of both Hitler and Mussolini- was nearly all of gangs attacking Trump supporters. Which reminds me of that famous Tom Wolfe quote: "that the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe." Democrats talk of Fascism, but act like Fascists. No, not all Democrats. Hillary's slogan was "Stronger together," which brings to mind <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_symbolism" rel="nofollow">fasces</a>, a bundle of sticks tied together.Gringonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-36360773115573209372016-11-10T17:10:57.014-05:002016-11-10T17:10:57.014-05:00Indeed, given the facts on the ground today, I wou...<i>Indeed, given the facts on the ground today, I would have to say that she could hardly have done worse</i><br /><br /> A lot of the facts seem to indicate her direct involvement. The Libyan fiasco, the subsequent Syrian fiasco, etc. Why the US ever decided to oust Qaddafi, after he agreed to suspend his WMD programs, I cannot figure out- outside of providing a tremendous arms cache for the Islamists, and a conduit to Europe for all the refugees, it sent an unmistakable signal we were not to be trusted and the only way to keep the US from interfering is to KEEP or GET WMD's. <br /> The level of stupid was staggering. The only explanation is that it was a deliberate goal to destabilize.ravennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-38589782973841704752016-11-10T16:42:51.179-05:002016-11-10T16:42:51.179-05:00Sanity is rationality, generally speaking. In 200...Sanity is rationality, generally speaking. In 2008, I was in Iraq. The Republican primary was between John McCain and Mike Huckabee (who was never actually going to come close to winning the nomination). The Democratic primary was a tightly-fought race between Hillary Clinton and a half-term Senator with no military or other relevant experience, who would be taking over to lead two hot wars -- including the one in which I was personally engaged.<br /><br />I voted in the primary that seemed to give me a chance to limit the harm. Ultimately, of course, Clinton lost, and the the Republicans lost, and that largely unqualified young man became President. You can see what became of Iraq as a consequence. And Syria. The whole Middle East, really. <br /><br />There was a reason, in other words: it was a rational decision on its terms, even if ultimately it didn't change the outcomes. I still think Clinton would have done a better job in Iraq than Obama, though her subsequent tenure as Secretary of State suggests she wasn't going to perform as well as I'd have hoped she would. <br /><br />Indeed, given the facts on the ground today, I would have to say that she could hardly have done worse.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-33918422880616263882016-11-10T16:40:17.177-05:002016-11-10T16:40:17.177-05:00Liza, your question interested me. I realized tha...Liza, your question interested me. I realized that the comments I was thinking of came exclusively from people online. I have no way of knowing their race or ethnicity. They also have no way of knowing mine, though it's always interested me that people online tend to assume I'm a male, even a misogynist male, whereas in fact I'm more violently feminist than almost any progressives I know. As far as the minorities with whom I'm in constant contact in real life, in this small rural Texas county that mostly means Vietnamese and Hispanic, with the occasional black, and none of them has ever tried to insult my political views, nor--as far as I know--ever had reason to suspect me of ethnic or gender hostility. I'm pretty sure my gay friends don't suspect me of homophobia. Only people who know nothing about me jump to the conclusion that racist homophobic misogyny is the true key to my Trump vote. If you think gay rights and women's rights and BLM are the only issues that matter, it's probably hard to imagine someone whose vote follows economic and small-government lines instead. Most people don't have that much imagination, and little education or even curiosity about what motivates their political opponents.<br /><br />"What is different, in my mind, is how readily the larger population of conservative voters were willing to accept this type of behavior. There was very little backlash within the larger party about this." This is always the big problem, isn't it? It's how many of us here feel about Clinton supporters who appear blind to her crimes no matter what she does. It's a matter of priorities. I don't have to like Mr. Trump personally. He's not my boyfriend; the government is not my boyfriend. I'm not generally a fan of men who collect trophy wives. He's a bloody Keynesian, a crony capitalist, and a big-stater who's certain to disappoint me in office. All he has going for him is that I could not possibly have stomached pulling the lever for Clinton, and he was the only realistic alternative. I'll probably like 10-25% of what he does, which will put him 10-25% ahead of Clinton. If the weak-kneed GOP ninnies in Congress actually carry through with their promise to repeal the ACA again, I suspect Trump won't veto the measure. That alone is worth my vote. I also believe his S. Ct. nominees will make much less sick than the ones Clinton would have dreamed up once the checks cleared.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-89758357931093926362016-11-10T15:52:02.019-05:002016-11-10T15:52:02.019-05:00I voted for her in 2008, in the primary. I could n...<b> I voted for her in 2008, in the primary. I could never do so again after seeing her performance as Secretary of State.</b><br /><br />Now to me that's insane, given what I knew of the Demoncrats even in 2007, and Clinton's attempt to use the body armor issue to get more Americans killed.<br /><br />But to you, that was sane back then, ironic but a good comparison of the differences so many years ago. Have people changed? They say they haven't, and I say they have. In some ways they have changed, but in other ways, not. Just as it seems to Grim that I am losing it by talking about Lucifer, I consider Grim voting for Demoncrats in 2008, also on the same plane.<br /><br />Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-91085716629321945482016-11-10T15:44:40.803-05:002016-11-10T15:44:40.803-05:00I was going to prepare a long story about all the ...<b>I was going to prepare a long story about all the minorities I have worked and lived with, but realized I was falling into the same old justification trap- so here is my question- </b><br /><br />Amazing how that trap works, doesn't it Raven.<br /><br />To me, when an ant demands I justify why I am not an anti ant racist... you know what my response is? I step on it and crush it.<br /><br />Communication is a human conceit for equals or superiors. It is not something to be used for tools, zombies, or tools of Lucifer.<br /><br />The Alt Right produces the same social consensus via propaganda and memes. Meaning they can make people act ruthless against perceived other humans due to social pressure and stigma. Me, I do it by my own Will and Decision, I do not need a crowd or an island for approval or authorization. VoxDay's alt right's usual response to me, when they lose their computer code geek feelings of safety, is to accuse me of being a bad human that nobody wants. Usually that kind of attack against self esteem works against their greatest enemy, the Leftist alliance or SJWs. It is quite amusing to think they believe it will work against me, but then again, that's a good thing as it shows people's ignorance. So long as they are ignorant, they cannot use the right weapons against the right targets.Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-75019109657337826252016-11-10T15:23:54.725-05:002016-11-10T15:23:54.725-05:00I ask the question because the comments here gener...<i>I ask the question because the comments here generally have the same about the same point of view.</i><br /><br />Substitute Clinton for Trump. You've described the situation--absent blatant corruption and an utter disdain for security--from a perspective you pretend not to understand. Yet you're a rational, adult human being, same as the rest of us.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.com