The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
2020 Democratic Candidate Support Profiles
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The following graphs are sourced from data included in the most recent YouGov survey on the 2020 presidential election. Apologies for the odd number formatting. There’s a minor glitch in the Docs’ graph maker that hopefully will be resolved soon. “Someone else” also includes “not sure” responses.

The distribution of support among the top five candidates among white likely primary/caucus voters:

Warren’s and Buttigieg’s support overwhelmingly comes from (non-Hispanic) whites. In contrast, far fewer than half of Biden’s supporters are white.

Support among blacks:

Harris’ inability to become the black candidate continues. If she fails to do so by the time South Carolina rolls around next year, she’s done.

Support among Hispanics and others (the latter’s survey sample, at just 33, is prohibitively small to be included separately):

Support among those aged 18-29 (all races):

Though Sanders is staring senescence in the face, his supporters are several decades away from it.

Support among those aged 30-44:

Support among those aged 45-64:

Support among those aged 65 and older:

Biden’s age distribution is the inverse of Sanders’. The utter lack of support Sanders gets among geriatrics is remarkable. These are the people most likely to participate in primaries and show up to caucuses. It’s another reason Sanders has no hope.

Support among those who self-describe as politically liberal:

Sanders and Warren represent the progressive wing of the party (which is disproportionately white)–Sanders the younger, poorer contingent and Warren the older, affluent one.

Support among those who self-describe as politically moderate:

In addition to his strong non-white support, Biden’s base is comprised of older, moderate white voters who are bewildered by what is happening. They want to go back to 2008, to a time before The Great Awokening, to a time before they were despised and called racists by progressive members of the political party they have supported their entire lives.

 
Hide 116 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Mr. XYZ says:

    Interestingly enough, I think that Elizabeth Warren actually has a realistic shot at being the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee *if* Bernie drops out early enough and actually endorses her. That said, though, I do agree that, as of right now, the odds do appear to be in Biden’s favor in 2020–though the future appears to belong to more progressive Democrats (though not to Bernie and Warren themselves due to their age).

    • Replies: @Arclight
    , @notanon
  2. Twinkie says:

    Whites like Pocahontas, blacks (and old folks) like the creepy uncle, and Hispanics and Asians (and children) like the Champaign socialist.That about sums it up?

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  3. Lot says:

    Degenerate gambling update:
    Warren is now the slight favorite in the primary, 29 to 28 over Joe.

    I am long both of them. I went long Liz with perfect timing when she was being left for dead and was at 7. Joe I went long around 23. I am short everyone else except Mayor Pete who I think is the most likely dark horse.

    “Harris’ inability to become the black candidate continues. If she fails to do so by the time South Carolina rolls around next year, she’s done.”

    Northern blacks maybe. Southern blacks want a winner and from experience know black Dems do worse in the general.

    Kamala looks like she’ll get killed in Iowa and NH. SC blacks aren’t going to save her after seeing that.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  4. Lot says:

    I agree with the prediction market Warren is a slight frontrunner now. She’s doing everything right and consolidating the left. And she’s looking quite vigorous for her age in contrast to Joe and Bernie.

    Joe and Bernie however have a secret weapon against her: non-Dems voting in the Dem primary. Joe will attract the votes of centrists and even some Republicans who have no real primary this round. Bernie is loved by anti-establishment independents. This is impossible to see in polls because a lot of such people don’t even know themselves that they will eventually vote in the Dem primary. And even closer to the primary dates, they won’t get screened in as “likely voters” since they may not have voted in the prior Dem primary.

    Joe also has another strength that may give him the lion’s share of the undecided vote: he consistently polls better against Trump than Warren.

    Based on these factors it is hard to pick one as the winner now.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  5. Well, in my state of the Hoosier Nation, we have an open primary. So I will be voting to help a crazy Democrat who will be unelectable in the fall. Although our primary comes so late that it likely won’t make a difference.

  6. Hmmm.  Are there any (and I mean any) Dems who are anti-Deep State?  Who’d drain the swamp?  (Buttplug is obviously a swamp creature himself.)

    Because pitting two anti-Deep Staters against each other in the general would be priceless.  The FAGs wouldn’t know whose supporters to censor.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  7. Arclight says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    Agree on Warren but it is possible Bernie’s ego is so massive he won’t drop out until way later in the game than he should to push Warren past Biden.

    I wonder how many Bernie supporters will ghost on the eventual nominee once he drops out, like millions did in 2016. If Democrats are only slightly more motivated to vote for their nominee than last time around Trump is toast. But the unreliability of a decent percentage of the Dem primary base gives him a perhaps even money shot at re-election.

  8. “Harris’ inability to become the black candidate continues. If she fails to do so by the time South Carolina rolls around next year, she’s done.”

    The one candidate in the bunch who has an actual track-record of successful cultural appropriation is Liz Warren. Wanna bet she has more African DNA than Indigenous American? Maybe someone should tell her to take another look at the results.

  9. Realist says:

    You should have supplied a chart showing support among those to the right on the bell curve…’someone else’ would have greatly dominated.

  10. This seems an vindication of my previous Bernie-boosting. Biden is still a favourite but harris is a horrorshow. I speculated that a White-Hispanic electoral alliance for Bernie would be an underrated combination. The big roadblock would be to get Warren out of the way early, as she would block most of those voters who would otherwise go to Bernie.

  11. “Harris’ inability to become the black candidate continues. If she fails to do so by the time South Carolina rolls around next year, she’s done.”

    Well, she has already played her trump card against Biden, and that appears to have had zero effect in attracting more black voters, as well as possibly scaring off older white Democrats who found her insinuations about Biden being racist absurd, considering he was after all, the first black president’s VP for 2 terms. Harris over estimated both black gullibility and white guilt. Unless they can find a picture of Biden throwing a rope of a tree branch, I think Harris’ chances are clearly minimal at this point. Her handlers might consider starting work on her bid for VP.

    A legitimate Mexican mestizo contender would have made this primary a lot more interesting.

    This large diverse field of Democrats may backfire. The Democratic voting base is fairly fractured and many (especially the minorities) might stay home on Tuesday is it’s not “their guy/gal” on the ballot.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  12. Harris’ inability to become the black candidate continues. If she fails to do so by the time South Carolina rolls around next year, she’s done.

    Kamala Harris is a mulatto mixed in with some Hindu type subcontinent Indian ancestry.

    That ain’t the kind of candidate the Black Church Ladies be done voting in.

    Hindu types are well known for haughtiness and hubris and looking down on every other damn caste type there is in India or any other place.

    These Hindu types think they’re the cat’s meow.

    I can’t believe that Joe Biden is gonna be the Democrat Party presidential primary candidate that successfully uses the AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY to win the Democrat Party presidential primary election, but it just might be the case.

    The AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY is to win the votes of Black lady voters in the South and other areas of high Black population concentration. Hillary Clinton used the AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY to fend of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democrat Party presidential primary campaign.

    Kamala Harris, according to some guy on the internet, is married to a Jew whose parents moved away from an area in California that was under the threat of racial Black busing in order to avoid having to go to school with large concentrations of Blacks. This arrogant baby boomer boob Kamala Harris had the nerve to attack Joe Biden for his stance on Black racial busing when Kamala Harris’s own Jew husband’s parents moved to get away from the chance that their son would be caught up in the undertow of Black racial busing in California.

    Black Church Ladies and beautiful Aunt Jemima ladies don’t give a crap about no crocodile tears and fake rage about Black racial busing from some damn fool named Kamala Harris!

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  13. Svevlad says:

    No Tulsi?

    They have no chance, then.

    • Agree: nokangaroos, AnonFromTN
    • Disagree: RadicalCenter
  14. iffen says:

    You should do a straw poll of your regular commenters. I go with Warren first, then Bernie.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  15. @MikeatMikedotMike

    A similar fracturing of the democrat’s base happened in 1860, the last election before the civil war. Is history about to rhyme?

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  16. countenance says: • Website

    Biden’s base is older moderate whites and older blacks. Blacks line up behind the perceived big dog. Remember back in 2007, black voters and politicians started the season firmly behind Hillary instead of Obama. It was only because progressive whites opposed to the Iraq War and the endorsements of senior high level white women elected Democrats of Obama (Queen Bee Syndrome) made the water warm enough, did blacks defect to Obama.

    Also this is more proof of my axiom that a politician who is banking on the youth vote is already writing his own concession speech. Politics are old people’s games. Hint: “Senate” as a word has as its root the Latin word meaning “old man.”

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  17. @Twodees Partain

    Good point and I don’t know. I’m not too thrilled about the prospect of another Republican president orchestrating the useless deaths of 800,000+ young white men.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  18. Thomm says:

    WN wiggers tend to prefer Bernie Sanders, on account of his Nationalism + Leftism combo.

  19. Wow.

    Biden really just does not seem fit for the presidency. He’s an idiot. He’s senile.

    Trump landslide if Biden wins, I predict.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @Twodees Partain
  20. @Lot

    I think you’re correct re: Harris. She has to finish a respectable 2nd-4th in both Iowa and New Hampshire and then win Nevada and South Carolina. If she does that, Super Tuesday includes California next year, so she can win that way. But if she finishes in the single digits in both of the first two states as polls indicate she will atm, she’s probably finished.

    I bought her at 7 cents so I could still cash out ahead now but I also maxed no on everyone but Biden. Gulp.

    • Replies: @Lot
  21. @Lot

    If you want Trump to win reelection–and I do–Warren winning is the best possible outcome of these five. Current polls show Biden and Sanders crushing Trump. Warren beats him by a little and several polls actually have Trump beating Harris and Buttigieg.

    The reason Warren is his best matchup is because she gets the closest to neutralizing the waaaaycism perpetual attack machine. “She pretended to be an Indian to get into Harvard, folks. Pretend Pocahontas, I call her.” She’s by far the easiest to neutralize on this front. She’s not charismatic and she looks like a goof.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Thomm
    , @Feryl
  22. @Mr. Rational

    Yang and Gabbard are the only two who can even be considered anti Deep State. I don’t think Gabbard has any chance at all. Yang could still conceivably have a breakout moment but I don’t know what it would be.

    Sanders probably made the Deep State a little uneasy in 2016, but he’s proven totally housebroken on everything. If the Dem establishment tells him to jump, he always asks “how high?”

  23. @iffen

    On personal support or who the most likely candidate is?

    I’ve blathered on enough but the latter. For the former, Gabbard first and Yang second.

    Among these five, Buttigieg scares me the least.

  24. Lot says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Since I bragged about my four-bagger on Warrawatha, full disclosure: I also got 2000 Zuck shares when he was doing his 50-state tour across the USA for about 6 each: ie $120 down the toilet.

  25. @Charles Pewitt

    The first black female President will be Stacey Abrams … she will get the job after Joe passes away, having first helped Joe pick up the black church lady vote you cite

    • Replies: @JudgeSmails
  26. Lot says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Biden’s polling lead over Trump is so large he’d have to be a disaster on the campaign trail to fritter it away.

    Unfortunately he shares with Trump a natural alpha male salesman charm and teflon resistance to harm from scandal and gaffes. He’s also less scary and motivating to the right than Warren, who just rolled out a full-on Black Lives Matter type criminal justice “reform” package. She also advocates wealth taxes and full socialized medicine.

    I can see the surviving Koch brother all by himself putting $500 million in dark money to stop Warren, but if it is Biden instead focusing on the House and Senate and state leg seats in advance of redistricting.

    The upshot of all this is that primary voters usually succeed in selecting the best candidate for their party. Trump, Bill Clinton and Obama are examples of dark horses their parties wisely nominated over the initial frontrunners.

    There is also a good chance 2020 is another Dem blowout whoever they nominate, with a national polling lead that ranges from 7 to 14 points the entire cycle. So in that case, Dems going with the more vigorous and competent Warren is the rational choice.

    They did quite well in all the post 2016 elections in PA/WI/MI and both Biden and Warren are more attractive personalities than Hillary. Warren comes off to me as goodie earnest schoolmarm while Hillary had a lot more entitlement and anger at white maleness in her persona.

    Hillary also veered right on the wrong issues: free trade, warmongering, and corporate bankster power, demoralizing to the left without gaining much in return. So I don’t think Warren being to Hillary’s left is a relative weakness.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  27. Lot says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Most likely to win the nomination: Liz>Joe>>>>Pete>Kamala>Booker>Bernie

    Least bad as President:
    Yang and maybe Williamson.

    As for Tulsi, I really don’t like the idea of another affirmative action Hawaiian. Being born on the island of Samoa, farther away from the Midwest than Minsk, Moscow, Madrid and Tokyo doesn’t help either.

    Her father is a mixed white-Samoan evangelical Christian with an admirable anti-Islam and secular leftism record. Her mother is a German American from Indiana who moved to Hawaii and somehow converted to Hinduism, and Tulsi decided to be a Hindu too as a teen despite going to Christian schools.

    I find it unsettling when white (or mostly white) Americans convert to foreign religions like this. Islam would be the worst, Buddhism the least bad, Hinduism closer to Islam. It is a free country, she can do what she wants. But the idea of a woman with mostly white Christian ancestry and zero Indian ancestry that decided to be a Hindu becoming President is really bad symbolically as it represents a conscious and explicit rejection of our majority religion and culture in favor of a Third World replacement.

  28. Thomm says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Current polls show Biden and Sanders crushing Trump.

    Not likely.

    Both are too old, plus they both have too much baggage. The Sanders bit about trimming hours due to the very higher minimum wage mandate he advocates for was hilarious, and enough to torpedo his campaign.

    Have some faith!

  29. @Lot

    “I really don’t like the idea of another affirmative action Hawaiian.” It seems unlikely that Tulsi Gabbard, who went to Hawaii Pacific University, was a beneficiary of affirmative action. Not that she’s unintelligent — to the contrary, her analysis of our foreign policy is far and away the best on offer. Gabbard’s also the best bet to neutralize the force of politically correct identity politics, as a woman of color who doesn’t go in for this mode of coercive identitarian discourse.

    The rest of your analysis strikes me as equally superficial and bigoted. She’s a Hindu, yes, but this seems to have more to do with her preference for Yogic meditative practice over the Roman Catholic (not evangelical Protestant) liturgy practiced by her father, as with any deep ideological commitment to anti-Christian beliefs.

    It’s a bit of a paradox, given her Hinduism, but Tulsi is the most pro-Christian candidate in the race. Consider her explicit support of religious freedom, her skepticism of what W.H. Auden called “the Homintern,” and, most importantly, her well-considered rejection of the absolutely ruinous PNAC/Washington/Israeli military grand strategy to remake the Middle East, which is the root cause of the refugee crisis in Europe and the immediate cause of the genocide of Christians in Syria.

    • Replies: @Lot
  30. @MikeatMikedotMike

    That’s the precise picture I had in my mind as well. It’s not a pretty picture at all.

  31. MarkinLA says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    I don’t understand this Biden whips Trump stuff. Anybody can see he is mostly a rambling incoherent idiot. He has the same problem on a campaign Hillary did – she didn’t have the stamina and crying racist all day won’t work.

    Imagine Biden on a vigorous campaign, having televised debates and endless campaign stops. However, he did a beat-down on Ryan – which says more about Ryan than Biden.

    The big issue is whether Ginsburg is still kicking at election time. If she is pushing up daisies, the enthusiasm for Democrats will be muted.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  32. @countenance

    That is an excellent point. The game of electoral politics is certainly played by and for the older segment of the populace. This does make it easier for the hijacking of elections via fraud, though. Older people just don’t want to believe that vote fraud is likely.

    Throwing a fit over a stolen election is very much the province of young voters, who still think that it all has to be fair while not yet having arrived at the maturity that would make them throw their fit in the event of the election being stolen for their preferred candidate.

    Of course my view is that of an old codger who was first eligible to vote in the ’68 election.

  33. @The Alarmist

    The first black female President will be Stacey Abrams …

    I just felt a chill run down my spine reading this. I’m in Georgia, and for the life of me I do not understand the seemingly wide ranging support of this woman.

    Maybe having double or triple woke-poke points-black, woman, possibly gay-allows her to skate along without very much scrutiny of how she managed to get deeply in personal debt despite supposedly having the intellect to graduate from Yale law school. She should’ve been able to write her own ticket to a secure position at a large law practice. For diversity, you know.

    And really, very little scrutiny of anything she’s been associated with.

  34. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    ” He’s an idiot. He’s senile.”

    True. He’s such an idiot that his family wouldn’t notice that he’s going senile.

  35. Barring some kind of massive, unforeseen development, Elizabeth Warren will be the nominee.

    Every other candidate simply can’t be nominated, so she wins by default.*

    And then Trump beats her.

    *I hate to come across like I’m channeling Tucker Carlson…but I just don’t understand how people can take Biden’s polling numbers seriously. That guy isn’t going to win a single primary.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  36. “They want to go back to 2008, to a time before The Great Awakening, to a time before they were despised and called racists by progressive members of the political party they have supported their entire lives.”

    Right on the money. The Democratic Party has become the political weapon of the authoritarian Left. The Republican Party has never respected the white working and middle class, so they can continue their slide into oblivion. I have affection for President Blumpf, but I’d rather he was my uncle. I am relieved that my 17 year old daughter resides in a Scandinavian country with her mother. Because even with the migrant problems, which in her country is mainly confined to a couple of cities, Europe is still the best place for her. I hope I’m proven wrong, but I think the future for white folks in the USA is bleak.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    , @216
  37. @Audacious Epigone

    “Among these five, Buttigieg scares me the least.”

    The Dem candidate that should scare all of us is the one wh0 will choose Stacey Abrams as VP.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  38. Feryl says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    It’s mind boggling that in the current PC climate, Warren could somehow overcome lying about non-white ancestry for the sake of career gain (C’mon people, she can’t convincingly pretend that is was some innocent little mistake, given that Warren from the outset had absolutely no proof of Amerindian heritage).

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @notanon
  39. @Audacious Epigone

    Among these five, Buttigieg scares me the least.

    Because he is the most likely to loose to Trump by a landslide?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  40. @Twinkie

    There’s a socialist from Illinois in the race?

  41. Lot says:
    @Tulsi-crat

    I think you understate how much she is a party-line Dem other than her foreign policy.

    Some of the far-left garbage from her “issues” page:

    Her issues page says “100% renewable energy by 2035” which is a dumb joke.

    Really, shut down every single gas and coal plant in the entire USA in 16 years?

    “Ban private prisons”

    Mostly meaningless, also violates states’ rights.

    “Tulsi’s support of gun control has led to her rating of 100% by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, along with an “F” rating from the NRA ”

    “Free college”

    “Tulsi has led the fight for GMO labeling”

    “Tulsi is urgently fighting for legislation to protect millions of young people from deportation with end of DACA (Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals)
    Tulsi has worked with the Hawai’i ACLU, Hawai’i Civil Rights Coalition, Hawai’i Coalition for Immigrant Rights and the National Immigration Law Center to work towards meaningful immigration reform”

    “Refugees from Central America are also a result of decades of U.S. regime change war, drug wars and exploitative economic policy”

    “Tulsi stated, “The Trump Administration’s use of children as pawns in the immigration debate is despicable and must end now.””

    “one of the strongest voices in Congress to work for the respect and equality of people of Muslim faith.

    Tulsi was invited by Muslims for Peace to be the keynote speaker for “Prophet Mohammed Day” at Rutgers University. Tulsi’s inspiring message emphasizes the need for religious peace and unity.

    Tulsi respects the Prophet Mohammed as a representative of God: “As a Vaishnava Hindu…I recognize and respect both Jesus Christ and the Prophet Mohammed as messengers of God, messengers of love, peace, and universal brotherhood.”

    As someone who has vigorously fought for religious freedom and tolerance, Tulsi has taken a strong stand against Islamophobia in all its ugly forms

    Tulsi has spoken against Islamophobic statements by President Trump, Senator Lindsey Graham and Ben Carson

    Tulsi defended Muslims from Ben Carson’s outrageously bigoted statement during the 2016 presidential primary…”

    “She is a member of the LGBT Equality Caucus in the House

    Tulsi has been given a 100% for her voting record and endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT lobby organization in the country”

    “Tulsi strongly supports the Medicare for All Act ”

    “Tulsi is an original co-sponsor of H.R. 377 – Paycheck Fairness Act, which ensures women equal pay for equal work”

    • Replies: @Feryl
  42. @SunBakedSuburb

    Sorry, but your daughter will in no way be safe in any Scandinavian country. In every one of those countries, white natives don’t have children anywhere near replacement level, while noneuropean (and usually Muslim) invaders have children at higher than replacement level.

    With very small populations of native whites, and a high average age of those whites versus average age a full DECADE or more lower among nonEuropeans there, demographics will change more and more rapidly in every Scandinavian country, fairly soon.

    I wish it weren’t so, but please don’t have the illusion that your loved ones there can count on being safe much longer, whether they live in the “bigger” cities or not.

    I don’t know where to advise them to move, either, as I’m trying figure that out for our children already, and not optimistic.

  43. 216 says: • Website
    @SunBakedSuburb

    I am relieved that my 17 year old daughter resides in a Scandinavian country with her mother. Because even with the migrant problems, which in her country is mainly confined to a couple of cities, Europe is still the best place for her. I hope I’m proven wrong, but I think the future for white folks in the USA is bleak.

    It could be worse, that’s better than her residing with UrbaneFrancoOntarian.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
  44. iffen says:
    @Feryl

    Warren could somehow overcome lying

    Good luck finding a politician that does not tell lies at least on some occasions. Choose whichever generation in which you wish to search.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    , @Feryl
  45. Bilgeman says:

    From the spread of the responses and who favors whom, I wonder if the pollsters’ question was:

    “Which of these Losers do you consider the least Loserly?”

  46. iffen says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    On personal support or who the most likely candidate is?

    My choice if I can’t have Trump.

    I was sold on Harris. I thought that with the money and establishment support and her (supposed?) appeal to the POC and woke vote she would take it.

    I don’t see a favorite now. I’m seeing the increasing possibility of 3 or 4 candidates going into the convention with delegate blocks with none anywhere near a majority.

    Will the POC and woke bloc sit still for Biden/Abrams 2020?

  47. notanon says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    yeah – she wouldn’t have had a chance in 2016 but imo both Biden and Sanders slipped into “too old” in the interim.

  48. notanon says:
    @Feryl

    90% of Dems are media-controlled – things are only an issue if the media make it an issue.

    Biden being filmed touching up little kids at senate swearing in ceremonies would have wrecked his political career if he was GOPe but it didn’t cos the media didn’t show it.

  49. Feryl says:
    @Lot

    And this sort of stuff is why Tulsi isn’t more popular. Bernie has a venerable track record of populism on economic and foreign policy issues (voted against NAFTA and the Iraq war), and for a long time was not an over-zealous fighter on any sort of social or ID politics issues. Andy Yang carries very little ID politics or social issues baggage, also, but he can’t seem to get much electoral traction.

    Also, Bernie even on the 2016 campaign trail stuck to his immigration restriction guns, only relenting very recently due to the Neo-Nazi PC hysteria*. Bernie is a New Deal Democrat, through and through, whereas Tulsi came of age in the Reaganite era and clearly doesn’t understand that “wokeness” is inimical to a culture with a strong labor movement and middle class.

    Tulsi as president? Woke dove.
    Yang as president? Technocratic wonkery (not necessarily a bad thing)
    Bernie as president? New Deal restoration insofar as the traitor establishment of both parties would allow it.
    Biden as president? Slightly woke-flavored neo-liberalism.
    Harris as president? Obama 2.0 (corporate cronyism w/ provocative anti-white ID politics)
    Warren? Token reform of Wall Street and inequality, but far less than what Sanders would do. A poor man’s Bernie.
    Buttwhatever? ZZZZZZZZZ, who cares?

    Harris would be a divisive and corruption generating disaster as president (just like Obama and Hilary), and something about Warren creeps me out. I think her policies could easily be diverted into Soviet style over-reach and repression, whereas Bernie and Yang are more wholesome and temperate (go watch Joe Rogan’s podcast, Bernie’s “casual” persona is rather low-key and pragmatic, again, very New Deal-ish).

    *Had Bernie been elected in 2016, we could’ve gotten immigration reform without the hysterical cries of “Nazi fascist”. But since Trump was elected, the tiniest bit of immigration restriction is met with fury. I still maintain the explicity identifying Mexicans as a threat was a horrible, horrible move by Trump. He should’ve just said that we needed a stronger border to make us safer, it wasn’t necessary to call out Mexicans.

  50. Feryl says:
    @iffen

    “I was sold on Harris. I thought that with the money and establishment support and her (supposed?) appeal to the POC and woke vote she would take it.”

    I think Harris smells like Obama 2.0, being that both are thoroughly establishment figures in legal/corporate/political circles, and both could use their black heritage to gain privilege and promote anti-Western/anti-White Cultural Marxism. Both seem to be highly opportunistic and weak-willed, conforming to whatever seems convenient and beneficial to them at the time (e.g., Obama married Michelle to keep it real, while Harris has clearly chosen her romantic partners out of career self-interest).

    Biden has a Clintonian track record to re-assure nervous older Democrats who want neither New Dealism nor sloppy Trump flavored Reaganism. Biden is a safe choice, safer then even Obama who strayed too far from Clintonian centrism on social issues.

    For younger and more restless voters, Bernie’s radical (for our era) New Dealism and Warren’s possible Cultural Revolution are the most appealing choices.

    Harris is neither centrist enough nor radical enough; even older black voters intuitively understand that the Obama era was awful for the general stability of America (even among blacks, older people generally want stability), and don’t want a sequel to the Obama era. Furthermore, among younger voters, even the black ones, the distaste for the political culture of the 1980’s-2000’s is not going to dissipate, similar to how among Boomers, their rejection of mid-20th century New Deal norms increased with age (to modern aged Boomers, a return to normalcy means returning to 1985, not 1965 let alone 1955).

  51. @216

    She would be very happy living with me. As long as she keeps the white babies coming out, we’re happy! (Plus she would have a nice big litter of babies she could show off to people in church!)

  52. iffen says:

    among Boomers, their rejection of mid-20th century New Deal norms increased with age (to modern aged Boomers, a return to normalcy means returning to 1985, not 1965 let alone 1955).

    I’m a Boomer and I would like a return to 1935 New Deal politics.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  53. Nominating Biden re-elects Trump. Or doesn’t. Either way. The same ruling 1% benefits from either. That’s democracy. American style. You have a choice.

    Do you want the blue bludgeon or the red bludgeon? The pink handcuffs or the lavender ones? The straightjacket with or without the breast pocket? Feel free, Americans!

    “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel” — as Pres. Eisenhower put it. That’s why the 1% maintains “America’s” Two Parties and Media and Pundits and Educators. To prevent it.

    • Replies: @Tlotsi
  54. Warren has an ace in the hole, which she could use in the general against Trump: pivot to being the pro-White, working class candidate.

    “Yes, I lied. I said I was Indian because White people are discriminated against. I know your pain, America. I am going to end affirmative action and end all programs that discriminate against White Americans.” And then return to her roots and go hard on Two Income Trap.

    Would never happen

  55. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    Andy Yang carries very little ID politics or social issues baggage, also, but he can’t seem to get much electoral traction.

    He isn’t going to get much electoral traction because he carries very little ID politics or social issues baggage. The media is just going to ignore him. He wants to talk about boring economic stuff. What has that got to do with politics?

    Had Bernie been elected in 2016, we could’ve gotten immigration reform without the hysterical cries of “Nazi fascist”. But since Trump was elected, the tiniest bit of immigration restriction is met with fury.

    Yeah. Thanks to Trump immigration restriction will be off the political agenda for the next twenty years. He’s made the subject too hot for any politician to handle. Only fascists want to talk about immigration restriction.

    Kinda ironic given that Trump is not even an immigration restrictionist.

    Trump has poisoned the well on so many issues. His election might well be seen in the future as the greatest disaster of recent history. It’s amusing that a lot of people think that his greatest asset is that he’s moved the Overton Window slightly, but in practice he’s moved it a long way towards the cultural left.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    , @Feryl
  56. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    among Boomers, their rejection of mid-20th century New Deal norms increased with age (to modern aged Boomers, a return to normalcy means returning to 1985, not 1965 let alone 1955).

    I’m a Boomer and I would like a return to 1935 New Deal politics.

    I’m a Boomer and that sounds pretty good to me as well.

    1985 was ghastly.

  57. @Lot

    The lead isn’t 7-10 points unless the Democrat is Biden or Sanders. Elizabeth Warren’s polling lead over Trump is EXACTLY the same, to the tenth of a percentage point, as Hillary’s was over him in the week before the 2016 election. Harris has him by a point or two and Buttigieg is actually slightly losing to Trump.

    • Replies: @Lot
  58. @Lot

    She has a lot of the right enemies, she’s making the fight against social media censorship a centerpiece of her campaign–which is really staggering for someone running as a Democrat–and she wants to stop bombing places and fewer bombs means fewer refugees.

  59. @MarkinLA

    Muted? Unless Trump and the Senate ram through another SCOTUS pick, her leaving will be a huge motivating factor for Democrats (though it will also get just about every last Conservative, Inc voter out to support Trump, too).

  60. @Kevin O'Keeffe

    You don’t think he’s going to win South Carolina?

    Who do you think will, then?

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
  61. @AnonFromTN

    That too, I suppose. He’s already courting superdelegates. He has no political allies, no political career. He’s the mayor of a small city. It would take six of his cities to get to the requisite population to be a congressional representative. He is now and would be if elected a complete tool of the neo-liberal establishment. That’s crummy, but it’s survivable.

  62. @iffen

    That’s a laughing with, not at, Feryl. He brings a unique generational perspective to a lot of things, takes a lot of personal shit for doing so, and never returns the ad hominem in kind. He’s a class act as far as commenters go.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @iffen
    , @Feryl
  63. @iffen

    Buttigieg is already courting the super delegates. They can’t participate in the first round, but if no one gets a majority of pledged state delegates, the supers get to vote in the subsequent round.

    • Replies: @iffen
  64. @Feryl

    Humorously, the biggest difference between Sanders supporters and Warren supporters is that the former are poor and the latter are affluent.

    I listened to the full Rogan/Sanders conversation. Sanders only mentioned race once over the course of more than an hour, and it was in an “all lives matter” context–something about poor blacks, poor Latinos, and poor rural whites. But he doesn’t have the spine to call out the party for obsessing over racism this, misogyny that.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    , @dfordoom
  65. @dfordoom

    Disagree emphatically on the immigration issue. It consistently polls as the top issue among Republican voters by a long shot. That’s absolutely extraordinary, as it has consistently been either the economy or healthcare in the top two spots for decades with no other issues ever coming close save for terrorism in the years immediately after 9/11. Maybe that will dissipate once Trump is gone but I doubt it.

    Among independents, it polls near the top as well, usually at second or third.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    , @Charles Pewitt
  66. Feryl says:
    @dfordoom

    He isn’t going to get much electoral traction because he carries very little ID politics or social issues baggage. The media is just going to ignore him. He wants to talk about boring economic stuff. What has that got to do with politics?

    Bernie got traction over the last several years without wokeness. I think Yang needs more seasoning, and needs to develop a serious track record like Bernie did. Trump had no “official” political record, though he did go on record for many years that America’s trade and foreign policies were a joke.

    Trump has poisoned the well on so many issues. His election might well be seen in the future as the greatest disaster of recent history. It’s amusing that a lot of people think that his greatest asset is that he’s moved the Overton Window slightly, but in practice he’s moved it a long way towards the cultural left.

    Bernie deserved to win in 2016, but the black church ladies didn’t want that to happen. New Dealism is much easier to sell in a Dem presidency. Trump, on the other hand, was co-opted almost immediately by the Pentagon and the Reaganite de-regulators. I don’t think any Republican president could’ve launched a real reform effort in 2017.

    And like you say, over his first term economic issues have increasingly been ignored by people, instead it’s more and more attention being given to a neo-Stalinist flavor of culture policing, to prevent the hyped up latent Neo-Nazi movement from gaining more power. The main consequence of yet another GOP presidential term (of which there have been 8 1/2 since 1968, compared to 5 for the Dems) has been the inexcusable delay of reforming us away from Reaganism. Yet this is something that about 95% of people aren’t consciously aware of , instead being distracted by retarded ID politics and concern regarding Trump’s temperament

    BTW, the GOP’s failure to take up the mantle of populism, and the continued stifling of the Bernie movement by older Dems, means that we could end up with some possible future Dem president being a lunatic who fully plunges America into a commie style cultural revolution. Mainstream culture is vehemently warning us to not give a platform to the Right-wing equivalent, while refusing to note that Woke Leftism could lead us down the disastrous path that Stalin and Mao once went down.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  67. Feryl says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    The problem is that Trump always painted immigration in Reaganite terms* (national security and public order), which befits a strong and stable country with a good middle class (which is what America was in 1985). It would’ve been more appropriate to frame immigration as an issue of economic fairness (which duh, none other than Bernie Sanders did on the 2016 campaign trail), in keeping with the public’s dissatisfaction with our current post-modern economy. It’s not 1985 anymore.

    Because America, uhhh, 4.0(?) obviously sucks due in large part to too much diversity, no, immigration is not going away as a big issue. If the Dems can’t get their act together on immigration, then the GOP will remain the default party of restriction supporters, of which there likely will be only more as time goes on (a lot of middle aged and elderly people are going to resent being around so many foreigners, whereas younger people tend to be more accepting of instability and “stimulation”)

    *Hence the pedantic fixation with stopping illegal immigration, when in reality we give legal citizenship to way too many low quality people.

    **1.0 :1776-1865 (pre-Civil War and the Civil War itself)
    2.0:1866-1932 (Reconstruction and Gilded Age)
    3.o: 1933-1980 (New Deal and Great Society)
    4.0: 1981-present (Neo-liberal era)

    We essentially seem to be on an alternating cycle, bad following good, though each era in itself has it’s ups and downs. For about one century after it’s founding, America seemed to be on the right track…Then the Civil War. The post-Civil War era ended up being pretty ugly, for the most part (rise of the KKK, heated battles over large immigration waves, rampant vigilante violence, the nasty labor unrest and organized crime excess of the early 20th century that caused the 1920’s and early 1930’s to be the most dangerous time to be a cop since police killing peaked during this period). The 1930’s-1970’s were an increasingly pleasant and equitable time period relative to the harrowing 1860’s-1920’s, with the only real nastiness coming in the late 60’s and early 70’s when American youth were upset about Vietnam, and blacks were, well, upset about everything.

    The reason I gripe about Boomers is that they’ve consistently exaggerated the flaws of the New Deal/Great Society era, without any genuine understanding of the period that really was America at it’s worst: the 1860’s-1920’s. Since Boomers are so ignorant, for the most part, they are doing things that have set us on a course to experience another extended period of widespread disorder, distrust, weak and disrespected institutions, and so forth. AKA a repeat of the Civil War/Gilded Age era. This is something that Boomer historian David Kaiser has mentioned numerous times in recent years, due to the horrendously terrible and divisive performance of high level Boomer leaders.

    Yet Boomers tend to think that the Manichean battles they wage are all for a good cause, are all based in “principle”. So you can’t ask them to be more reasonable, patient, temperate, compromising etc. They all think they are heroic crusaders fighting the bad guys. Saturday Morning Cartoon logic and moral reasoning, which is precisely what drove America into the ground during the Civil War era and continued to plague us until the 1930’s.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  68. Feryl says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Corporate weasel Obama has clearly been fixated by race since……Forever. As Sailer often wryly noted, somehow the media accepted his first campaign as “post-racial” even though “race” is in the title of Obama’s first autobiography! Also, back in 2008 America was still conservative enough that the Dems felt pressured to market Obama as a sort of aw-shucks type, a great neighbor and family man. Whether they realized it or not, Obama was nothing of the sort, being deeply neurotic about his identity, his family, and his country, and even getting involved in Chicago “community organizing”. Obama, like I said above, is weak and the beneficiary of privilege and affirmative action for which he doesn’t seem to be grateful. If you watch him give unscripted talks, he seems rather aloof and awkward, no where near the presence or strength that most of our presidents prefer to project. Maybe the ninnies out there think Trump is bad because he isn’t as nerdy as Obama was.

    Humorously, the biggest difference between Sanders supporters and Warren supporters is that the former are poor and the latter are affluent.

    This is why Agnostic has given the best take on Warren: she’s a phony populist, a champion for striving middle class people who haven’t gotten their invitation to the best country clubs. Warren began as a conservative corporate lawyer in the 70’s and 80’s, which is when a lot of UMC people began to bitterly complain that the Old Money elite were too provincial and boring, and needed some loosening up. The main champions of stuff like full market de-regulating were actually the smaller and newer players on the market. Warren was a lawyer for these renegade firms that wanted Uncle Sam out of the financial markets, which Reagan and especially Clinton allowed to happen eventually. In fact, by the mid-90’s rebellious (against wholesome norms) and dangerous corporate whores like Liz Warren were defecting to the Dems, since Clinton was shredding the New Deal so much that gauche 80’s yuppie culture, which once emphasized voting Republican, had now been adopted by the dominant Democrats to the point that some greedy “conservatives” were now comfortable voting Dem.

    Warren wants the high elite to be taken down a few pegs, in order to placate the vindictive jealousy of the worst sort of people in the UMC*. Bernie wants the prole class to be more secure, and people in general to be more happy. He doesn’t want to reward obnoxious and irreverent strivers. Warren’s affect is so shrill and annoying because she represents the continual pique of someone who is just that close to having something important and ego-gratifying but yet can’t quite get it. Bernie on the other hand wants the average person, who cares not for grandiose ego trips and “beating the competition”, to feel relaxed.

    *Our real problem is that many people in the top 20-30th of income distribution are trying so hard to be in the 1%. Back in the New Deal era, upper middle class people became comfortable accepting the leadership of the major elites who did not want society to be de-stabilized. Come the 70’s and especially the 80’s, there were an increasing number of UMC folks competing zealously to knock out the established 1% so that the former could climb higher. And this only got worse in later decades.

    and it was in an “all lives matter” context–something about poor blacks, poor Latinos, and poor rural whites.

    Yeah, he’s rather dryly noting that we’ve got to figure out how to best address the needs of as many people as possible. That what what we did, for the most part, in the New Deal and Great Society era. Back then, it wasn’t about spouting pretty platitudes as we raced to the bottom and bankrupted the future. America can’t be thought of as “the shining city on the hill” anymore, since brain-dead sentiment breeds complacency which leads to cultural rot and decay. We have to get back to New Deal era notions regarding the actual nuts and bolts of running a functioning society.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  69. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    But he doesn’t have the spine to call out the party for obsessing over racism this, misogyny that.

    If he did that his chances of winning the nomination would immediately drop to zero. If he wants a shot at the nomination the smart thing to do is just avoid those issues where possible and try to keep the focus on issues he actually cares about.

    It is possible that he’s playing 4D chess!

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  70. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    Bernie deserved to win in 2016, but the black church ladies didn’t want that to happen.

    Agreed. Of course Woke Capital also didn’t want it to happen. The last thing Woke Capital wants is a candidate pushing actual left-wing economic policies. Or even mildly left-of-centre economic policies. They want candidates with right-wing economic policies (candidates like Hillary who just loves bankers) and with identity politics/SJW social policies so the voters won’t notice that they’re actually voting for an economically right-wing candidate.

    BTW, the GOP’s failure to take up the mantle of populism, and the continued stifling of the Bernie movement by older Dems, means that we could end up with some possible future Dem president being a lunatic who fully plunges America into a commie style cultural revolution.

    Agreed. And that will suit Woke Capital just fine. They like cultural revolutions. It’s economic and political revolutions that scare them. While the Red Guards are searching for Nazis and white supremacists under their beds and forcing them into struggle sessions they’re not hassling bankers.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  71. iffen says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    That’s a laughing with, not at, Feryl. He brings a unique generational perspective to a lot everything [to a lot of things].

    Both, I know that I’m a bad boy sometimes, but think about this: if there were one model or “a key” we wouldn’t even have to think about these things.

    Ad hominem was an expected and respected tactic until recently. “Professional” journalism that strives to be objective and provide an unbiased view is of recent origin and is rapidly passing from the scene. You don’t have to go back that far to see that the media was exclusively partisan. If you doubt this, I can show you the storefronts of local newspapers still puplishing as The Union Leader or simply The Democrat. If we accept that “our” liberal values, practices and institutions have brought us to the point where Armageddon is close (or very close, if you prefer) then everything should be on the table and up for scrutiny and evaluation and that includes democracy, free speech, supposed unbiased media, ad hominem, guilt by association, etc.

  72. iffen says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    I can see the bumper sticker now: Buttf***kers For Butti.

  73. iffen says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    I forgot to mention in that list that people like me and doom need to reconsider whether it is feasible to electorally “capture” the power of government and use it to improve the lot of common folk.

  74. @Audacious Epigone

    Immigration policy and monetary policy are the two big issues in American power politics — excepting the electronic command and control of the US military, of course.

    Immigration is demography.

    Monetary policy is debt and the ability to conjure up the currency out of thin air to reward certain generational cohorts.

    White Americans born before 1965 were bought off with asset bubbles and debt in order to keep their mouths shut about nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and nation-destroying mass illegal immigration.

    The plutocrat globalizers in the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire have been using mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration as demographic weapons to attack and destroy the European Christian ancestral core of the United States of America. It has been a generational plot by the plutocrat globalizers from the get-go.

    If you are not somewhat conversant with the connection between central banking and mass immigration, it would behoove you to get with the action and do so.

    The Pewitt Plan is to 1) raise the federal funds rate to 20 percent to implode the asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate and 2) The Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) will give each American citizen who has 4 grandparents that were born in the USA before 1924 ten thousand dollars a month and 3) immediately implement an immigration moratorium, deport all illegal alien invaders and strongly encourage other foreigners to vacate the USA.

    The Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) is a means to educate and inform the American public — especially the young White Americans — about the evils of globalized central bankers.

    I propose using radical means to make AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION easily available for all young White Core Americans.

  75. @iffen

    How about Michelle Obama for Prez and some pretend-moderate white guy from a swing state for veep? Scary.

    • Replies: @iffen
  76. iffen says:
    @RadicalCenter

    They have to do two things: jazz the POC vote (which Hil failed to do) and get a fair share of the un-woke, moderate, independent vote (again which Hil failed to do). It is a tricky task.

    Of course, if the economy tanks, it is moot.

  77. @Audacious Epigone

    You don’t think he’s going to win South Carolina?

    Who do you think will, then?

    I’ll allow that Biden may eke out a narrow, small-plurality victory in South Carolina, shortly before his campaign otherwise collapses.

  78. Feryl says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Well, that’s ‘cuz guys like you and me need to put the best foot forward for people born in the early-mid 80’s; i big reason I gravitate to the generational stuff is because blogs/podcasts/internet culture in general are a formative element of Millennial culture, and became a big deal to me, because I felt that the Legacy Media outlets/universities/corporations etc. *have always been run by older gatekeepers who either don’t understand, or don’t care about, the tastes of younger generations (or at least some sub-groups within that generation, see the Alt-Right and the Bernie Bros of the last 5 years). The internet has enabled us in circumventing the gate-keepers, which I know is something that older generations also appreciate to some degree**.

    Not to brag, or anything…..But I do think that people born in the late 70’s and early-mid 80’s had the benefit of learning to communicate on message boards and blogs at a younger age, before the rise of toxic modern social media led to a lot of pointless bickering, harassment campaigns, and over-all dumbing down over the last 10 years. And these trends affected late Millennials and Gen Z a lot.

    *Whose leadership has been greying for 30 years, let’s not forget.

    **MSM websites are now increasingly worthless because the commenting restrictions are, of course, an effort to keep the gate-keeping alive and well. The corporate money hungry elites of older generations, combined with the SJW Left youth brigade, are teaming up to crush dissent and turn back the clock on the growth of free speech afforded to us by an uncensored internet.

  79. Feryl says:
    @Feryl

    In terms of the overall cycle, it looks like 2019 is way too early to leave behind the neo-lib era. The shortest era so far was the New Deal/Great Society era, which lasted for “only” 47 years, and still persisted in spite of attacks launched against it from about 1967-1980, only to end with a whimper when Reagan enacted the tax cuts of 1981. America’s beginning stage lasted for about 90 years, and the Reconstruction/Gilded Age era lasted for 66 years (which survived Progressive attacks against the era in the early 20th century, only for FDR’s mid-1930’s New Deal to swiftly vanquish the last remnants of an ugly and corrupt era).

    38 (1981-2019) years seems to be too short; we have to get at least 10 years beyond 2019 to have a real shot at over-throwing Reagan neo-liberalism. For you older folks out there, you may not want to hear this but realistically, a change will only happen when Silents are no longer voting at all and Boomer voters are a much smaller portion of voters relative to later generations.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  80. Tlotsi says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    You have a choice: Coke or Pepsi!

  81. Feryl says:
    @iffen

    Warren is getting more support from Yuppies because they sympathize with her desperation to claw her way to the top BAMN. As such, in their eyes it’s ok to lie your ass off if it means getting into a more elite school.

    • Agree: Lot
  82. Lot says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    If Warren wins the nomination she’ll gain stature having beat a former VP and several others. She can also start moving to the center compared to now when her goal is uniting the left and taking Bernie’s support.

    For this reason I think the national polls may understate her support. She also will gain when she picks a white male VP, possibly from a swing state.

    Gary Peters and Sherrod Brown are possibilities and more alpha choices than Hillary’s.

    • Replies: @HBS
  83. Dissident says:

    I spent hours composing a response to the recent reply that Audacious Epigone had graciously made to my last comments in the Hypocritic Oath thread. I was finally ready to post, only to discover that the thread had been closed to new comments. I am therefore taking the liberty of posting my reply here, where I think much of it may be at least tangentially relevant to the larger topic under discussion. Should AE, Mr. Unz or any other site moderator or administrator decide to remove this post of mine on the grounds of it being excessively off-topic, I would ask that AE at least be given a copy to read at his leisure. I thank all involved for their continued indulgence.

    – Dissident

    Thank you AE, d for doom and iffen for the replies. I shall attempt to address some of the many complex and sensitive questions that were raised by AE and iffen, feeling it necessary to make a number of points. I acknowledge that brevity, concision and remaining focused on the points and topics that are most directly pertinent and germane to a given discussion are areas of weakness for me.

    1.) Perhaps I should begin by pointing-out that Jews is a rather vastly broad category. Those who identify as Jews (or would be identified by others as such) span an entire spectrum of views, positions, affiliations, practices and lifestyles— religiously (from devoutly Orthodox to militant atheists), politically, socially, etc. (Authentic Judaism is a deeply traditionalist, patriarchal religion but for at least a century now, most Jews have not been religious.) That is the reality, contrary as it is to the many often preposterous conflations and blanket generalizations that are perpetuated both by those that presume to speak for world Jewry as a whole, as well as by those that are hostile toward Jews. (Even as relatively sympathetic and measured a critic of Jews as Hilaire Belloc, whose work The Jews is currently featured here at Unz Review, made errors in this vein that I found nothing short of glaring. How much more so for many of the Jew-obsessed, often unhinged individuals whose presence graces so many of the pages on this very site.)

    2.) Neither one’s view of Zionism itself nor one’s position in relation to the modern, secular state that calls itself ‘Israel’ are excluded from the many lines that divide Jews. (This is true even among the religiously Orthodox, who span the range from zealously anti-Zionist to militantly Zionist.)

    3.) Among the many questions that divide Zionist Jews is that of how to respond to Evangelical Christian support for the State of Israel. Many Jews, especially those of a more right-wing persuasion, enthusiastically welcome and embrace such support. Many have no problem fully aligning themselves with Christian Zionists. Other Jews, however, take a more cautious, skeptical or even downright negative view of such support.

    Some factors to consider:
    – Christian Zionists generally support the most hawkish and right-wing positions and policies within the Israeli political spectrum. Most Jews, in contrast, fall anywhere from center-right to far-left on that spectrum.

    – Evangelical Christians, by definition, are zealously proselytizing. That alone obviously creates a less-than-comfortable situation for Jews. More broadly are concerns, raised by Jews and non-Jews alike, that policies advanced by Evangelical Christians violate the Constitutionally mandated separation of Church and State. At least some individuals have gone so far as to argue that the ultimate goal of at least some on the Christian Right is to turn the United States into a theocracy.

    – For many socially liberal Jews, any appreciation that they might have for the Zionism of right-wing Christians is completely outweighed and overshadowed by the latter’s outspoken and ardent conservative (and signature) positions on such questions as abortion and “LGBTQ” stuff.

    – A phenomenon that is inverse to the above is found in the existence of socially conservative Jews who consider support for the State of Israel (at least now that, for better or for worse, it is a reality) a positive but one that is secondary to their social conservative principles. Case-in-point: Rabbi Yehuda Levin, who maintains that a Jew is forbidden from voting for any candidate that supports sodomy or abortion. Rabbi Levin has a long record of aligning himself with conservative Christians on these very concerns. Rabbi Levin served as co-chair of Patrick J. Buchanan’s 1996 primary bid for the GOP Presidential nomination. Clearly, the overwhelming reason for this support of Buchanan by Rabbi Levin was the candidate’s strong and unapologetic stand as a culture warrior defending society against those who sought to corrupt and corrode its very foundations. Rabbi Levin is not a Zionist, certainly not de jure and not ideologically. But it was fairly obvious, at least back then (1996), that on Israel, Rabbi Levin preferred the positions of the other GOP candidates to those of Buchanan.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @iffen
  84. @dfordoom

    He could say something like, “yes, white supremacy is a problem and Trump’s racist rhetoric is stoking it, but these are symptoms of deeper underlying issues. People can’t get jobs, they can’t get healthcare, they can’t get blah blah blah…”

    But he won’t even do that.

  85. @Feryl

    It’s spreading beyond even MSM websites to places like youtube. Or more precisely, youtube is increasingly becoming an MSM outlet. It’s really frustrating how hard it is to find videos on current events that don’t come from MSNBC, CNN, etc. The search results have become ridiculously procured over the last year or so.

  86. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    The internet has enabled us in circumventing the gate-keepers

    The exclusive reliance on online culture also makes it very very easy to shut down dissent. Dissent could be shut down almost completely overnight, if the globalist elite chose to do so. And they could do it without having to go to the bother of overturning the First Amendment. They could do it without the government seeming to be involved. That’s a huge vulnerability.

    Why haven’t they chosen to do so? Because it’s in their interests to keep a certain measure of dissent going. It’s a great way to drum up anti-Nazi anti-white supremacist hysteria. They need an Emmanuel Goldstein. They need to have an apparent enemy. If your long-term goal is to enforce complete conformity of thought you need an enemy to scare people with.

    The globalist elite needs the alt-right. The alt-right has been great for the elites.

    Trump has also been great for the elites. He makes a splendid Emmanuel Goldstein. He makes an ideal focus for Two Minute Hate sessions. With the added advantage that he doesn’t do anything that actually endangers them.

    The depressing thing about a lot of younger people is that they don’t seem to understand that internet freedom is an illusion. Online dissent is carefully managed to ensure that it remains harmless whilst still being useful to scare the normies with.

  87. HBS says:
    @Lot

    I can’t see Warren winning the nomination as something that would sit well with Black voters as her path at this point involves side stepping them. She would have to pick a Black VP and Sherrod Brown will not be picked for VP by anyone as it gives that Senate seat to Republicans.

    Oddly enough, if Warren were to emerge as the frontruner, it re-opens the door for someone like Harris, who, if she’s smart can attack Warren at her weak points. The woke media has completly avoided Warren’s Native American DNA gaf and affirmatice action issues, but it’s bound to come up. I can just see someone like Harris or Booker saying, “You know Liz, you abused affirmative action and took jobs from real Natives & POC.”

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  88. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    For you older folks out there, you may not want to hear this but realistically, a change will only happen when Silents are no longer voting at all and Boomer voters are a much smaller portion of voters relative to later generations.

    For you younger folks out there, you may not want to hear this but realistically, once Silents and Boomers are no longer voting it will be all over. The possibility of change will have disappeared.

    Later generations don’t really understand politics. They don’t understand that it’s hard work and you might have to leave Mom’s basement to achieve anything. The Cultural Revolution was almost certainly planned by elements within the elites but to make it happen required an immense amount of work and dedication on the part of the SJW foot soldiers. It was much harder work than posting cartoon frog memes.

    Younger generations might be disillusioned but their disillusionment is unfocused and undisciplined.They don’t even understand why things are bad.

    They have no historical perspective. How many Millennials even know that there was such a thing as the New Deal? Or the Great Society? How many know about the Russian Revolution or the Chinese revolutions? Or the Cultural Revolution in China? Or the Red Scare of the 50s? Or the Great Depression? How many know that it was the Russian communists that stopped Hitler? How many know about the cynical bungling that got the U.S. into the Korean and Vietnam Wars? How many even know that there was a Korean War? How many know that it was the Republicans who ended slavery?

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  89. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Dissident

    Evangelical Christians, by definition, are zealously proselytizing

    On the subject of Evangelicals, I think it’s worth stating that Jewish suspicion of Evangelicals is understandable. Evangelicals look like a bunch of white people holding incredibly crazy and extreme beliefs with fanatical zeal. Evangelicals include a large number of people who want nuclear war because it will hasten the End Times and The Rapture. OK, hundreds of millions of people might die but the important thing is that the Evangelicals will go straight up to Heaven.

    Evangelicals do not support Israel because they like Jews. They support Israel in the hope that Israel will be the catalyst for Armageddon. In the process the Jews will all die but to Evangelicals that’s more of a feature than a bug. To Evangelicals Israel is just a tool to bring about the End Times.

    Evangelicals scare the daylights out of me. I can imagine that they scare Jews even more.

    • Replies: @iffen
  90. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    Evangelicals scare the daylights out of me. I can imagine that they scare Jews even more.

    You have been hanging around with the wrong Evangelicals.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  91. iffen says:
    @Dissident

    1.) Excellent exposition on the individuality and diversity of “Jews.” However, most of us like to deal in stereotypes, not to mention numbers. Some of us are aware when we are dealing in stereotype and some aren’t.

    2.) Yes, but to many of the “others,” Israel and the Holocaust define Jewishness. Judaism and “other things Jewish” are definitely sucking hind teat, which is why Trump’s charge of disloyalty played so well with this group. The holocaust/Holocaust “debate” is very interesting to me. If you throw in with the small letter group you are going to find yourself surrounded by denialist and revisionist neo-Nazis, so good luck with that. I have nothing but admiration for the people with the foresight to see the usefulness of Holocaust Museums and Taglit-Birthright Israel in maintaining a Jewish identity.

    I see many similarities between the support for Holocaust, as opposed to holocaust, and something like the 1619 Project, of which one goal seeks to rename black slavery as The Slavery. The crucial interesting point is the responses to each and the motivations of those that are hostile or in opposition. Why can’t Jews consider themselves as The Holocaust survivors? Why can’t black Americans say that is was their ancestors that made America great?

    (This is true even among the religiously Orthodox, who span the range from zealously anti-Zionist to militantly Zionist.)

    I make the bold prediction that the question of whether this is the “real” Zion will not generate the traffic that the question of whether this is the “real” Messiah did.

    3.) Those pesky Christians and their cultural appropriation again.

    a positive but one that is secondary to their social conservative principles

    Yes, this was my point to AE, but you did a much better job of presenting it.

  92. @Feryl

    Totally disagree with your take on BS : I see him as a ranting , psychotic, marxist fool, who has no concern about the lot of the average American whatsoever, other than to dispense his phoney lip-service regarding this issue. He is insane and his fever dream is to install communism regardless of it’s many failures in the past.
    Warren is an über opportunistic scumbag who could not spell the word ethics if her life depended on it.
    The rest of them, the Democrats, are all fucking blabber-mouth hypocrites and crazies, and if they somehow manage to cheat their way back into the WH, and the blue-haired crazies are in power this will simply hasten the inevitible downfall of the US and the demise of a grand idea.

    Don’t get me wrong as the Republicans are not much better, however they are better than the lunatic Democrats period.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet, and pro jazz performer with fifty-plus years on the bandstand.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  93. @dfordoom

    ” How many know that it was the Russian communists that stopped Hitler”

    How many know that without the millions of tons of American military supplies, tanks, planes locomotives, munitions, food stuffs, medicine, the Russians would not have had a chance to defeat anybody.

    AJM

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  94. @iffen

    The holocaust/Holocaust “debate” is very interesting to me.

    I found this extremely interesting.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    , @iffen
  95. At least some individuals have gone so far as to argue that the ultimate goal of at least some on the Christian Right is to turn the United States into a theocracy.

    They’re perceptive people, so they’ve surely noticed–as the rest of us have–that religiosity is collapsing in the US, headed towards European levels of secularism, and that the religious right is a shadow of its former self.

    For many socially liberal Jews, any appreciation that they might have for the Zionism of right-wing Christians is completely outweighed and overshadowed by the latter’s outspoken and ardent conservative (and signature) positions on such questions as abortion and “LGBTQ” stuff.

    So it’s liberalism first and Israel second–or third, or fourth, or wherever.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  96. @Mr. Rational

    The World Book Encyclopedia is anti-Semitic. Always has been, always will be. You didn’t know?!

  97. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Authenticjazzman

    ” How many know that it was the Russian communists that stopped Hitler”

    How many know that without the millions of tons of American military supplies, tanks, planes locomotives, munitions, food stuffs, medicine, the Russians would not have had a chance to defeat anybody.

    How many Millennials even know the Russians were on our side in WW2?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  98. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    At least some individuals have gone so far as to argue that the ultimate goal of at least some on the Christian Right is to turn the United States into a theocracy.

    They’re perceptive people, so they’ve surely noticed–as the rest of us have–that religiosity is collapsing in the US, headed towards European levels of secularism, and that the religious right is a shadow of its former self.

    Assuming that the Evangelical nutters do realise this it’s going to make them crazier and more dangerous. The collapse of religiosity is surely a sign that the Antichrist is at work and that the End Times are getting closer. Nuclear war will seem more and more attractive.

  99. @Audacious Epigone

    The World Book Encyclopedia is anti-Semitic.

    And Encyclopædia Britannica?  You conspicuously ignore the first example.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  100. Dissident says:
    @iffen

    Excellent exposition on the individuality and diversity of “Jews.”

    Thank you. I put a lot of thought and effort into posts such as these and it is always gratifying to see them appreciated.

    Judaism and “other things Jewish” are definitely sucking hind teat,

    I’m not sure how you would figure that Judaism is on the decline. Yes, as I noted, it has been a long time since most Jews were religious but that has been changing for some time already– a result of what the PDF graphic I linked-to in my previous reply to you contrasts: low birthrates and high rates of intermarriage among all Jews other than the Orthodox vs. the inverse among the latter. Assuming these trends continue as they have been for some decades already, it won’t be that long before the Orthodox become the majority and even super-majority of Jews.

    The holocaust/Holocaust “debate” is very interesting to me. If you throw in with the small letter group you are going to find yourself surrounded by denialist and revisionist neo-Nazis, so good luck with that.

    I have for some time now been trying to avoid using the H-word altogether, preferring in its place phrases such as the Nazi genocide of Jews. The types you refer-to deny that there was such a genocide. I do no such thing. I have known survivors of it. It clearly was horific and it should not be forgotten. But why is this particular genocide more worthy of the proper-noun title The Holocaust than, say, the genocides and atrocities that were perpetrated under Lenin, Stalin or Mao? How many museums and taxpayer-funded public school curricula, etc. dedicated to the latter are there?

    [MORE]

    I make the bold prediction that the question of whether this is the “real” Zion will not generate the traffic that the question of whether this is the “real” Messiah did.

    The Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael)* is unquestionably the real Zion that is spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures; the Holy Land. The question is how one views the secular, irreligious state that has usurped the holy name Israel; the state founded in 1948 in defiance of the leading rabbinic sages of the day and at the expense of many lives. (Prior to the ascendancy of Zionism, Jews and Arabs living in the Holy Land got along with each other rather well for the most part.)

    (*Note that the State of Israel includes land that lies outside of the Biblical Land of Israel and vice versa. Eilat, for example, is no more holy than Sharm El Sheikh or Ain Sokhna.)

    I have nothing but admiration for the people with the foresight to see the usefulness of Holocaust Museums and Taglit-Birthright Israel in maintaining a Jewish identity.

    An identity based upon victimhood and mourning is morbid and will inevitably be moribund. As for “Israel”, suffice it to say that Judaism has existed for thousands of years before the Zionist enterprise and will continue to exist long after the latter has been consigned to the dustbin of history. (May that day come speedily and with mercy; peacefully, without harm to innocents.)

    Those pesky Christians and their cultural appropriation again.

    Perhaps this would be a good place to reiterate a sentiment I have expressed in a number of past comments, one that the behavior of many prominent Jews causes me to feel the need to express whenever a proper opportunity to do so arises. I feel a strong sense of gratitude toward a mostly White and mostly Christian United States of America for the extraordinary kindness and hospitality that it has shown Jews (including my own family and myself). I find the contempt, disdain and scorn for non-Cosmopolitan and especially Christian and traditionalist Whites that has become so prevalent, so in-vogue and, increasingly, so brazen to be both shocking and abhorrent. I might add that I have also known and had positive experiences with many non-Whites and with non-Christian gentiles as well. I utterly reject the equation of support for immigration restriction, race-realism, or the right of White and Christian nations to maintain their own ethnic and religious character with hatred, persecution, or violence of any kind*. Particularly perverse is when those engaging-in such self-righteous scolding and preening are individuals who themselves support warmongering foreign policy that results in utterly gratuitous mass slaughter. (*I will add that gratuitously ugly comments from supporters of the aforementioned immigration restriction and nationalism, etc., are no help here either.)

    Yes, this was my point to AE, but you did a much better job of presenting it.

    I appreciate the compliment. I think, though, that you may have meant to quote from the paragraph of mine that was just above the one that you actually quoted from. For it was in the former that I spoke-of the type of liberal Jews that you spoke-of in your reply to AE (“the wokist people that have ever lived”). That is, ones who place their liberal values ahead of support for Israel. The statement of mine that you quoted, however, clearly referred to the opposite: conservative Jews who place their conservative values ahead of support of Israel.

    Thank you for engaging.

    • Replies: @iffen
  101. iffen says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Allow me to quote myself:

    I have nothing but admiration for the people with the foresight to see the usefulness of Holocaust Museums and Taglit-Birthright Israel in maintaining a Jewish identity.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  102. iffen says:
    @Dissident

    Thank you. I put a lot of thought and effort into posts such as these and it is always gratifying to see them appreciated.

    I certainly do, and I thank you for engaging as well. Although, I am somewhat embarrassed by having my less than cultivated comments juxtaposed with yours, and ask indulgence for not taking the time to polish my feeble efforts. In my defense, I did take about 40 years off. Even so, I am not sure that even in my prime I could stay with a wordsmith such as yourself.

    I’m not sure how you would figure that Judaism is on the decline.

    If I had taken the time to better explain myself, it would have been clear that I was referring to those Jews in the first 3 columns of your graphic. Insofar as the JQ concerns the US, those are the ones that “matter.” For example, those SJW types and the neocons types in the media who are ardent Zionists pounced on Trump’s disloyalty comment. Did we hear anything from the non-Zionist Jews? Are non-Zionist Jews even allowed in the MSM?

    it won’t be that long before the Orthodox become the majority and even super-majority of Jews.

    Doom’s unfounded anxiety about Evangelicals pales beside my anxiety at this eventuality. (Present company excepted.) Evangelicals are not going to seize control of a nuclear arsenal, but the same cannot be said about the Orthodox Jews. Masada II, the Samson option, now those scenarios are scary.

    I have for some time now been trying to avoid using the H-word altogether, preferring in its place phrases such as the Nazi genocide of Jews.

    This works for you, but will not work for non-Jews. It is just like questions concerning the founding of the modern state of Israel and political issues like BDS. There has to be a rationale, and for religious Jews of a certain perspective that is no problem. For non-Jews the rationale that can be constructed is very narrow and teeters over into anti-Semitism very easily.

    But why is this particular genocide more worthy of the proper-noun title The Holocaust than, say, the genocides and atrocities that were perpetrated under Lenin, Stalin or Mao?

    Well, you are obviously dissatisfied with this becoming a major part of the Jewish identity. But that is between you and your fellow Jews, it doesn’t bother me. Anyway, don’t most Holocaust rememberances also include mention of Poles, Gypsies, and all the other groups that were targeted? FWIW, I use Holodomor and Naqba and so on. If the Armenians come up with a name for their genocide at the hands of the Turks, I will have no problem using it.

    The Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael)* is unquestionably the real Zion that is spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures; the Holy Land.

    Again my less than stellar writing is at fault. I was trying to get at the religious question of whether this “Israel” is the “real” Zion.

    (*Note that the State of Israel includes land that lies outside of the Biblical Land of Israel and vice versa. Eilat, for example, is no more holy than Sharm El Sheikh or Ain Sokhna.)

    It is my understanding that there are 3 or 4 descriptions of the “Land of Israel” in the Old Testament with the most expansive being from the Nile to the Euprates.

    I feel a strong sense of gratitude toward a mostly White and mostly Christian United States of America for the extraordinary kindness and hospitality that it has shown Jews (including my own family and myself). I find the contempt, disdain and scorn for non-Cosmopolitan and especially Christian and traditionalist Whites that has become so prevalent, so in-vogue and, increasingly, so brazen to be both shocking and abhorrent.

    Thank you for these thoughtful and kind words. Since I don’t actually know any Jews, I am going to put you on my wish list along side Sam.

    For it was in the former that I spoke-of the type of liberal Jews that you spoke-of in your reply to AE (“the wokist people that have ever lived”). That is, ones who place their liberal values ahead of support for Israel.

    Yes, again I must plead extreme and unforgivable carelessness. While we are making corrections, I wish to correct wokist to wokest.

    • Replies: @Dissident
    , @Dissident
  103. @Audacious Epigone

    Nope , WB is owned by Warren Buffet, big time Democrat, and he most certainly would not permit an anti-semitic stance in his own publication.

    AJM

  104. Feryl says:
    @Authenticjazzman

    If you watch, like me and Audacious did, the Joe Rogan podcast, it’s evident that Bernie is still sharp and stable. And his infamous “Koch Bros” quote is a more intelligent statement than anything that has ever been uttered by many Republicans. How many Republicans, since the 1980’s, have publicly admitted that greedy business tycoons (along with their cultMarx allies) are behind open borders? Those keeping score would remember that Reagan et al said that “refugees” (e.g. anyone from a third or second world country) had as much right to enjoy America as anyone else did.

  105. @dfordoom

    We’ve always been at war with Russia!

  106. @Mr. Rational

    I was trying to be funny.

    Your point is well taken.

  107. @iffen

    And when those museums are viewed as frauds and instruments of genocide….

  108. Dissident says:
    @iffen

    Thank you, iffen, both for your kind words as well as for another substantive and thoughtful reply. I appreciate a number of your points and challenges and they have given me much to think about and explore. I expect that this thread will soon become closed to new comments but perhaps we will at some point find ourselves with an opportunity to continue this discussion.

    I am flattered by your complimenting of my writing. I would reiterate, though, that it is not without its weaknesses. I have seen a number of comments of yours that have exhibited a pithiness and wit that I felt I could only envy. Take care.

    P.S. I see you are now “iffen2”. I wonder whether the change was merely due to some technical problem you encountered when trying to use your original handle, or something else.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  109. Dissident says:
    @iffen

    If you get a chance, I would be most interested if you were to elaborate upon somewhat on the evangelical question. Specifically, to respond to the claims made by d for doom, as well as the far milder ones that I had made. You likely know more about Jews by now than I know about evangelical Christians.

    • Replies: @iffen
  110. @HBS

    Yes, her black support is terrible. The YouGov iteration consistently shows her at around ~20% support of whites but just ~5% of blacks. Biden, on the other end, is around ~20% of whites and ~40% of blacks. Sanders gets around ~15% of each.

  111. @Dissident

    Yes, what is the reason for that? Is the original handle not auto-approving?

    • Replies: @iffen
  112. iffen says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    I picked up a virus and intended to do a restore, but through carelessness did a recovery which wiped everthing clean. (What is it with computer people, couldn’t they at least not give the processes similiar names? They think everyone wants to learn to code and we only want to use our PC.) I was unable to get to my bank safety deposit box and retrieve my encrypted sheet of made-up email addresses so I was unable to use iffen. Now, apparently R. Unz is exacting revenge for all the nasty and snide comments that I have made about him over the years, and I am stuck in limbo. Sometimes iffen is approved, sometimes rejected, same with iffen2, somtimes approved, sometimes rejected, neither auto-approve at your blog.

  113. iffen says:
    @Dissident

    At least some individuals have gone so far as to argue that the ultimate goal of at least some on the Christian Right is to turn the United States into a theocracy.

    I would tell you to disregard such crazy talk, but:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/21/church-alabama-gov-police-force-law/1525124001/

    Look, the worst that could happen to you is they would make you attend Jews for Jesus re-education camp.

    As to your theological concern with regard to Israel, I have never heard of any Evangelical expressing the opinion that the current Israeli state is not the rightful heir to The Promised Land and is not in fact The Gathering.

    As I stated, doom’s fears are unfounded and the description that he gives would apply to only a very tiny number of Evangelicals. People misinterpret the common everyday eschatological references in the language of Evangelicals. Most have a sort of animistic understanding of the world that is centered upon the very real prescence of God, and this is rigorously applied thoughout the day. I have observed that it is very difficult for people who have never believed in the supernatural to “get” the view of those that do.

    Back to politics and Jews, yesterday I listened to a liberal Jew on NPR explaining how Trump was anti-Semitic for using the disloyalty word while at the same time she acknowledged that the comment was not meant for Jews, but was intended to shore up his base. She then claimed trademark rights of Jews and Israel and said he didn’t have a right to use either of those two items in his politics. Immediately following her was an interview with another liberal Jew who explained that he had spent several hours trying to convince General Mattis that it is his “duty” to help bring down Trump (and he believes that he has convinced him to do so before the election.)

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS