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
Iran Is Not a Political Winner
🔊 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

Invaluable electoral advice for Republican politicians ahead of the 2020 elections, magnanimously offered free of charge from our humble outpost here at UR:

Bonus: Persia doesn’t get wrecked and America First doesn’t mean thousands of American lives and trillions of American dollars squandered attacking a country that poses no threat to us.

 
Hide 120 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. You’re preaching to the choir. I don’t there is a single individual who reads unz.com who is in favor of war against Iran. Additionally, I think we are all aware that these tanker attacks are a set-up. Trump would be unbelievably stupid to go to war with Iran.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Jim Christian

    Trump would be unbelievably stupid to go to war with Iran.
     
    It might be for this one, he should throw it into the lap of the Congress and Senate. Everyone blamed W for Iraq, and he DOES wear it, but Democrats (sans a very few) voted for it before they were against it and that's a fact. There was political privilege in voting for it. Democrats and their proles go where the privilege is. So far, war with Iran isn't fashion, no matter all the war drums beating. Encouraging. Iran is a skirmish we need to sit out.
    , @Colin Wright
    '...Trump would be unbelievably stupid to go to war with Iran.'

    Trump may not have a choice. Aside from whatever he promised Sheldon Adelson, who knows what dirt the Zionists have collected on him?

    Trump made his career as a rather sleazy entrepreneur in New York City. There are a whole lot of Jews in business in New York City. I'd be mildly surprised if the Zionists haven't managed to collect some juicy tidbits.

    ...or do you think Trump is doing all this because he wants to? Abrogating our agreement with Iran, appointing Bolton and Pompeo, driving Iran into a corner?

  2. Persia doesn’t get wrecked

    This is like an Austrian dude expressing reservations about attacking Serbia.

  3. Iran is the most manufactured ‘threat’ imaginable. It is a far weaker country on the other side of the world.

    The US no longer needs any oil from the Middle East. We could completely disengage from that region if we wanted to.

    In terms of military strength, Iran is no stronger than pre-1990 Saddam Hussein. It has a sub-replacement birth rate.

    There are very few Iranian Shiites in Al-Qaeda or ISIS, and have been few, if any, Iranian Shiite suicide bombers. Very few Iranians in the US have been connected to terrorism. The most ‘dangerous’ Iranian-American, as measured by threat to the globo-homo agenda, is/was Roosh.

    To the extent that the US ‘has to defend Israel’, Iran is pretty far from Israel too, with at least two countries in between.

    The entire creation of this narrative is for the sole purpose of keeping the military-industrial complex growing with artificially created demand for its otherwise unnecessary products and personnel.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Agreed, and I wonder if, as stupid as it sounds, the neocons pushing this crap think there is still a big chunk of America that associates Iran with the hostage crisis of 1979-81 and they must still be the bad guys, so long as the government says so.
    , @anon
    I have lost that piece of paper regarding hostage crisis of 1980

    Americans rescuer were very unhappy with the Mossad activities under the guise of diplomatic cover
    Mossad was busy trying to get hold of incriminating torture documents and financial agreements from the embassy
    It was also busy trying to rescue its own insiders but in the process were hurting US rescue mission .
    , @nebulafox
    Agreed. I find the Trump White House's fixation on Iran bizarre. They pose no fundamental dire threat to the United States. Israel is not the USA. Saudi Arabia is not the USA.

    Persians have been around for a long time, and they'll continue to be around for a long time after the Saudi Ponzi scheme ends. It's best to make peace with that reality now if we're serious about not getting into more Middle Eastern fiascos.

  4. It’s good to see all that brown, even if this is just Republicans. I’d bet that just 4 years ago, some other colors would be more prominent. Even though he’s not getting the job done, Donald Trump has pushed the immigration issue to the forefront.

    For those who haven’t clicked the link, over all the sample, just under 20% listed “Immigration” as tops, with “Economy in General” a close 2nd (1.2 percentage points lower). “Beating up on countries in the Middle East” doesn’t appear, and “Other” is #7 of the categories with 5% picking it as most important, even if you figure it might include that.

    It’s not 1979 or 2001 anymore. Nobody wants more foreign wars, and the smart people know we are too broke for it anyway. The real question is who do the Republican pols care about pleasing, the voters or the donors?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Unquestionably. I've been tracking this since the mid-2000s, back when immigration would poll as the top concern for ~5% of Republican voters and ~3% of the total population.
    , @Feryl
    Sadly, the very reason immigration is now a big concern is exactly because the issue was so mishandled in the 90's and 2000's (and even in the 2000's, ordinary Republicans firmly said no to amnesty in defiance of the traitor elites, knowing what "amnesty" helped do to CA). A problem doesn't become a problem until...It's a problem.

    The real question is who do the Republican pols care about pleasing, the voters or the donors?
     
    They didn't care when they passed the '90 immigration act, or when they voted for NAFTA. And they care even less nowadays. If they cared, they would stop building such large houses, and would stop buying as many luxury vehicles. They'd stop paying lots of money for hair cuts.

    And which voters are we talking about? The top 20% (who are the most reliable voters and donors) overwhelmingly have supported free trade and open borders. In the Trump era, many of them have defected to the Dems (if they weren't there already). But for the remaining GOP elites, do you know how grossed out they are by passing legislation that's in line with what ordinary people wanted, and got, in the 1930's-1970's? Do you really think they want to go back to the days of tightly regulated markets, strong unions, and high taxes on rich people? Think again. There are only so many people who "single issue" vote on guns and abortion (the only two issues that the GOP consistently handles with any guts). The GOP became the dominant party in the 80's, so that's what they are still invested in. At the moment they benefit from the Dems being the party of 2085, who alienate tons of working-middle class whites. The GOP has to be more populist to take advantage of the ID politics clowning that's drowning the Dems right now.
  5. With the US no longer dependent on Arab oil we need to rethink out geo-political posture in the MENA region. Allying with Saudi Arabia and its satellite sheikdoms no longer makes sense. Unfortunately we have no way to restore the US/Persian alliance that secured the region under the Shah.

    Since Iran will always be the dominant regional power we need to reach an accommodation with Iran but that can’t happen as long as Iran is an Islamic dictatorship virulently hostile to Israel. I think Trump understands this and for that reason his ‘maximum pressure’ on the Ayatollahs makes sense. If the we can effect regime change in Iran both Iran and the USA win a huge strategic victory.

    • Replies: @Justsaying
    Spoken like a true Zio-imperial quisling. It is Washington where regime change has long been overdue. Your empathy for Iranians is heart rending. Not.
    , @nokangaroos
    I think you overlook two teensy things ...

    - It is no longer about the ability to GET, but to DENY the oil to others (read: China, Japan and the EU, all far more dependent on the Gulf than the US ever were)

    - There is a reason the Gulf is called "Persian". Kuwait, Bahrain and the Saudi oil fields are Shia, and all the fiefdoms of camel thieves anointed by the British are having a serious legitimacy crisis (not made better by falling oil revenues)

    Mohammed Reza Shah was installed by palace coup in 1941 because his father, an old-school Kurdish brigand, was not corrupt enough - then again in 1953 because Mossadegh was too reasonable ...
    your jewishness is showing :P
    , @Corvinus
    "Unfortunately we have no way to restore the US/Persian alliance that secured the region under the Shah."

    Which had been achieved by underhanded ways in the early 1950's.
    , @Anonymousse

    If the we can effect regime change in Iran both Iran and the USA win a huge strategic victory.
     
    Wait... so... we’re going to help out Iran by destroying it? “If you kill your enemies they win” is now an actual neocon policy position? We can call it the Trudeau-Kristol doctrine!
    , @anon
    Master doesn't want the servant to reach an accommodation . Master Israel uses 12 th century serf USA to get certain things done .Once those certain things are done, new demands are created and orders are placed . Zionist - licking -America is doomed until it throws out the scum Israeli nation .


    Have you ever seen 2 gladiators coming to terms and calling it a day? No. Bith are being played by the master who loves the spectacles of 2 killing each other while he enjoys the warmth of the white prostitues and wine.

    Iran doesn't want to play but has been forced to enter the arena as unwilling contestants . But US has been told to keep on throwing punches so the promo film of violence starts rolling .
  6. Pretty impressive that even with most of the Pacific Ocean between Mexico and Hawaii, Hawaiian Republicans still rate Immigration third.

  7. @Thomm
    Iran is the most manufactured 'threat' imaginable. It is a far weaker country on the other side of the world.

    The US no longer needs any oil from the Middle East. We could completely disengage from that region if we wanted to.

    In terms of military strength, Iran is no stronger than pre-1990 Saddam Hussein. It has a sub-replacement birth rate.

    There are very few Iranian Shiites in Al-Qaeda or ISIS, and have been few, if any, Iranian Shiite suicide bombers. Very few Iranians in the US have been connected to terrorism. The most 'dangerous' Iranian-American, as measured by threat to the globo-homo agenda, is/was Roosh.

    To the extent that the US 'has to defend Israel', Iran is pretty far from Israel too, with at least two countries in between.

    The entire creation of this narrative is for the sole purpose of keeping the military-industrial complex growing with artificially created demand for its otherwise unnecessary products and personnel.

    Agreed, and I wonder if, as stupid as it sounds, the neocons pushing this crap think there is still a big chunk of America that associates Iran with the hostage crisis of 1979-81 and they must still be the bad guys, so long as the government says so.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    Even with the 'hostage crisis', Iran didn't actually kill any of the hostages. This is in stark contrast to Sunni groups like Al-Qaeda or ISIS, who would have in fact beheaded them one by one, as was their way of doing things.

    I think the marketing behind the anti-Iran narrative is soundly in the 'nuclear weapons' (which Pakistan already has) and 'Israel' (since half of all Americans don't look at maps often enough to know which country is where) department. Too few current voters are old enough to remember the hostage crisis, or think it was nearly bad enough to still use for rhetoric.

    , @unit472
    There were few other incidents that soured American feelings towards Iran. The bombing of the US and French peace keeping forces in Lebanon that killed 240 plus US Marines and 68 French soldiers being prominent. The kidnapping and torturing to death of CIA station chief William Buckley with videos of his lengthy ordeal being sent to Washington to keep the US government informed of his situation also made Iran less than popular.
  8. @Achmed E. Newman
    Agreed, and I wonder if, as stupid as it sounds, the neocons pushing this crap think there is still a big chunk of America that associates Iran with the hostage crisis of 1979-81 and they must still be the bad guys, so long as the government says so.

    Even with the ‘hostage crisis’, Iran didn’t actually kill any of the hostages. This is in stark contrast to Sunni groups like Al-Qaeda or ISIS, who would have in fact beheaded them one by one, as was their way of doing things.

    I think the marketing behind the anti-Iran narrative is soundly in the ‘nuclear weapons’ (which Pakistan already has) and ‘Israel’ (since half of all Americans don’t look at maps often enough to know which country is where) department. Too few current voters are old enough to remember the hostage crisis, or think it was nearly bad enough to still use for rhetoric.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I know none of those hostage were killed, Thomm. My point is that there are plenty of people who do not follow politics like unz commenters. That hostage crisis was A BIG DEAL 40 years ago, being at the end of the only-1/2-hour nightly news broadcasts every night for what, 444, days? There are people that remember nothing but "Iran bad", and plenty of people around at that time can vote today.

    Like I wrote above though, it may not matter what voters think anyway.
  9. @Thomm
    Even with the 'hostage crisis', Iran didn't actually kill any of the hostages. This is in stark contrast to Sunni groups like Al-Qaeda or ISIS, who would have in fact beheaded them one by one, as was their way of doing things.

    I think the marketing behind the anti-Iran narrative is soundly in the 'nuclear weapons' (which Pakistan already has) and 'Israel' (since half of all Americans don't look at maps often enough to know which country is where) department. Too few current voters are old enough to remember the hostage crisis, or think it was nearly bad enough to still use for rhetoric.

    I know none of those hostage were killed, Thomm. My point is that there are plenty of people who do not follow politics like unz commenters. That hostage crisis was A BIG DEAL 40 years ago, being at the end of the only-1/2-hour nightly news broadcasts every night for what, 444, days? There are people that remember nothing but “Iran bad”, and plenty of people around at that time can vote today.

    Like I wrote above though, it may not matter what voters think anyway.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    It's a very emotional thing for a lot of older voters. In the military, much of the impetus for joining among the current senior brass was the Reagan spirit: which was forged not least in the humiliating experiences of the proceeding years, the hostage crisis being particularly searing. As I've mentioned before, being hawkish is not the same thing as supporting "regime change" abroad anymore, as the GOP figured out the hard way when Trump barged his way to the nomination not least on this issue, but it does mean that any sort of non-aggressive policy toward Iran needs the right packaging.

    With such voters, if you frame it in terms of not throwing trillions more dollars down the drain for "democracy spreading" while America itself is left to rot, and throw in some neocon/Saud bashing on top of it, you get a lot further than pretending that the Iranians are nice guys who wish us well or anything vaguely "dove-ish". I was quite sympathetic to Obama on the need for a more rational policy concerning Iran, but-apart from failing to realize that Tehran cared way more about who ruled in Damascus than pieces of paper in Switzerland-he didn't do a great job with the optics.

  10. Iran represents a threat to Saudi Arabia which means a threat to the Petrodollar which is the threat to the US. Iran’s refusal to tow the line is also a threat to American hegemony and could encourage other states to follow suit. Many Americans are so confident in our wealth and prosperity that they don’t recognize how precarious our situation actually is. If the Saudis fall, there’s a good chance the Petrodollar’s reign ends and with it the easy living we’ve enjoyed since the Reagan years. It’s not quite as simple as many appear to want to believe.

    • Replies: @EldnahYm
    The U.S. doesn't need Middle East oil and dollar hegemony exists because of our wealth and prosperity(biggest export market) not the other way around.

    The idea that American prosperity is reliant upon Saudi Arabia is the same kind of reasoning that led people to suppose Iraq was a military threat to the U.S. Third world countries don't matter that much.

    In the U.S. case, where international trade as a percentage of GDP is quite small, where fossil fuels are abundant, where agricultural products are abundant, and where there are zero nearby military threats, even most first world countries don't matter much. This means the U.S. can have a totally irrational and destructive foreign policy and it makes little difference.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Wrt the US losing its status as the world's reserve currency--and thus also its status as the Petrocurrency--is it a question of if or when? I suspect the latter, so I see little reason in delaying the inevitable.
  11. LOL Hawaii!!!

    Hawaii: Let’s just them swim all the way over here, ha!

    Now, as far as advice on Iran…wonder if he will listen to the polls or his son in law?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    Don't worry. The refugee resettlement racket will get around to giving them free plane tickets. Enjoy, Hawaiians!
  12. Sid says:

    Biden is a stooge on most everything, but as VP he was one of the more firmly anti-interventionist figures in the Obama White House.

    Trump’s comparatively anti-interventionist stances gave him a leg over Hillary, and if we get bogged down in the quarrel between the Bedouins and the Sassanids under Trump, well, Biden will have that advantage without having to do anything.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Ma Laoshi
    @Sid: Biden? You mean, like, Biden Biden, Obama's veep? He ran the entire Maidan saga in Ukraine, boasted about it, and his clan got rich as Ukraine went down the drain. But the Bush cronies got rich off Iraq as well so hey, why not.
  13. Could it be that while our attention is now completely on the Persian Gulf, the Neo-cohens are actually plotting war with Russia?

    https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russia-experts-2017-prophecy-about-the-nuclear-threat-of-russiagate-is-coming-true-5b7726cb17e5

    I know, kinda dark. I hope it’s not true.

    • Replies: @Anonymoose
    The irony is that if US does the stupid decison to go to war with Iran, Russia might benefit from higher oil prices with shipping in the Persian Gulf made more dangerous.
  14. “Bonus: Persia doesn’t get wrecked and America First doesn’t mean thousands of American lives and trillions of American dollars squandered attacking a country that poses no threat to us.”

    Double bonus: The West doesn’t get flooded with a few million military aged Persian male “refugees” following the attack.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Why not flood our nation with Persians? Hasn't Roosh proved his mettle with his prodigious manospheric tomes?
  15. Hey Persians are great – in Persia.

    No thanks to wasting billions or trillions and then accepting all their refugees (did we accept German refugees on ww2 btw?)

    Trump is a moron and is following his advisor’s advice. They probably don’t even want him to be re-elected.

    He’s going to lose unless he does something about immigration.

    • Replies: @Anonymoose
    Trump for all his tough man posturing is to much of a coward to start an actual war himself but he is stupid enough to listen to neocon scum like Bolton and Pompeo.
  16. @Abelard Lindsey
    You're preaching to the choir. I don't there is a single individual who reads unz.com who is in favor of war against Iran. Additionally, I think we are all aware that these tanker attacks are a set-up. Trump would be unbelievably stupid to go to war with Iran.

    Trump would be unbelievably stupid to go to war with Iran.

    It might be for this one, he should throw it into the lap of the Congress and Senate. Everyone blamed W for Iraq, and he DOES wear it, but Democrats (sans a very few) voted for it before they were against it and that’s a fact. There was political privilege in voting for it. Democrats and their proles go where the privilege is. So far, war with Iran isn’t fashion, no matter all the war drums beating. Encouraging. Iran is a skirmish we need to sit out.

  17. @unit472
    With the US no longer dependent on Arab oil we need to rethink out geo-political posture in the MENA region. Allying with Saudi Arabia and its satellite sheikdoms no longer makes sense. Unfortunately we have no way to restore the US/Persian alliance that secured the region under the Shah.

    Since Iran will always be the dominant regional power we need to reach an accommodation with Iran but that can't happen as long as Iran is an Islamic dictatorship virulently hostile to Israel. I think Trump understands this and for that reason his 'maximum pressure' on the Ayatollahs makes sense. If the we can effect regime change in Iran both Iran and the USA win a huge strategic victory.

    Spoken like a true Zio-imperial quisling. It is Washington where regime change has long been overdue. Your empathy for Iranians is heart rending. Not.

  18. It looks like there’s a reasonably strong correlation between the importance of immigration among Republicans, and whether the state borders a foreign country.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  19. @Achmed E. Newman
    Agreed, and I wonder if, as stupid as it sounds, the neocons pushing this crap think there is still a big chunk of America that associates Iran with the hostage crisis of 1979-81 and they must still be the bad guys, so long as the government says so.

    There were few other incidents that soured American feelings towards Iran. The bombing of the US and French peace keeping forces in Lebanon that killed 240 plus US Marines and 68 French soldiers being prominent. The kidnapping and torturing to death of CIA station chief William Buckley with videos of his lengthy ordeal being sent to Washington to keep the US government informed of his situation also made Iran less than popular.

    • Replies: @anon
    The bombing of the US and French peace keeping forces in Lebanon that killed 240 ----

    These forces came to secure the illegal gains of Israel at the expense of Lebanon . Then the forces started shielding Israeli aggression . Israel also used them for spying .

    Nobody was interested to hear the words coming out of beautiful face of Buckley at least not among Lebanese Shia.
    , @Parbes
    "The kidnapping and torturing to death of CIA station chief William Buckley blah blah blah....."

    CIA slimebags like Buckley, together with their henchmen in pro-U.S. right-wing regimes around the world, have been kidnapping, torturing and killing countless numbers of people for decades (ever since WWII, in fact), whose only "crime" was to stand up for their rights and their nations' independence and freedom from U.S. subversion, domination and exploitation. So what if someone turned the tables once, for a change, and gave the innocent babe-in-the-woods Buckley a dose of his own medicine? I wish more people - especially the current Russian and Chinese governments - would do similar to the Buckley-ilk and their pet dog fifth columnists.

    CRY ME A RIVER, you neocon coward turd.
  20. anon[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @unit472
    There were few other incidents that soured American feelings towards Iran. The bombing of the US and French peace keeping forces in Lebanon that killed 240 plus US Marines and 68 French soldiers being prominent. The kidnapping and torturing to death of CIA station chief William Buckley with videos of his lengthy ordeal being sent to Washington to keep the US government informed of his situation also made Iran less than popular.

    The bombing of the US and French peace keeping forces in Lebanon that killed 240 —-

    These forces came to secure the illegal gains of Israel at the expense of Lebanon . Then the forces started shielding Israeli aggression . Israel also used them for spying .

    Nobody was interested to hear the words coming out of beautiful face of Buckley at least not among Lebanese Shia.

    • Agree: BengaliCanadianDude
  21. The military is strained to the breaking point with existing operations, and they think they’re going to fight Iran (while also deterring China and Russia). Ok.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    Is the USAF strained to the breaking point? I doubt the idea is a ground campaign, more of an infrastructure wrecking ball, although against stupidity the gods themselves battle in vain.
  22. @Digital Samizdat
    Could it be that while our attention is now completely on the Persian Gulf, the Neo-cohens are actually plotting war with Russia?

    https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russia-experts-2017-prophecy-about-the-nuclear-threat-of-russiagate-is-coming-true-5b7726cb17e5

    I know, kinda dark. I hope it's not true.

    The irony is that if US does the stupid decison to go to war with Iran, Russia might benefit from higher oil prices with shipping in the Persian Gulf made more dangerous.

  23. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Hey Persians are great - in Persia.

    No thanks to wasting billions or trillions and then accepting all their refugees (did we accept German refugees on ww2 btw?)

    Trump is a moron and is following his advisor's advice. They probably don't even want him to be re-elected.

    He's going to lose unless he does something about immigration.

    Trump for all his tough man posturing is to much of a coward to start an actual war himself but he is stupid enough to listen to neocon scum like Bolton and Pompeo.

  24. @Talha
    LOL Hawaii!!!

    Hawaii: Let’s just them swim all the way over here, ha!

    Now, as far as advice on Iran...wonder if he will listen to the polls or his son in law?

    Peace.

    Don’t worry. The refugee resettlement racket will get around to giving them free plane tickets. Enjoy, Hawaiians!

    • LOL: Talha
  25. @L Woods
    The military is strained to the breaking point with existing operations, and they think they're going to fight Iran (while also deterring China and Russia). Ok.

    Is the USAF strained to the breaking point? I doubt the idea is a ground campaign, more of an infrastructure wrecking ball, although against stupidity the gods themselves battle in vain.

    • Replies: @L Woods

    Is the USAF
     
    Yes. Both men and material are worn out. I recall stories of static displays (the airplanes on a stick) being raided for parts, and that was years ago. Aviation accidents have increased alarmingly, while the hideously undiverse pilot corps is voting with its feet and decamping for the airlines. This will have long term deleterious effects.
  26. @unit472
    There were few other incidents that soured American feelings towards Iran. The bombing of the US and French peace keeping forces in Lebanon that killed 240 plus US Marines and 68 French soldiers being prominent. The kidnapping and torturing to death of CIA station chief William Buckley with videos of his lengthy ordeal being sent to Washington to keep the US government informed of his situation also made Iran less than popular.

    “The kidnapping and torturing to death of CIA station chief William Buckley blah blah blah…..”

    CIA slimebags like Buckley, together with their henchmen in pro-U.S. right-wing regimes around the world, have been kidnapping, torturing and killing countless numbers of people for decades (ever since WWII, in fact), whose only “crime” was to stand up for their rights and their nations’ independence and freedom from U.S. subversion, domination and exploitation. So what if someone turned the tables once, for a change, and gave the innocent babe-in-the-woods Buckley a dose of his own medicine? I wish more people – especially the current Russian and Chinese governments – would do similar to the Buckley-ilk and their pet dog fifth columnists.

    CRY ME A RIVER, you neocon coward turd.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Doing this crap was more justifiable when it could be argued that other regimes/ideologies were worse than what the US stood for, and posed a legit threat to us.

    But after the fall of Soviet Union, it becomes much harder to rationalize screwing around with so many countries. "Better dead than red", right? Modern Russia and China, whatever their faults and ambitions, certainly are nowhere near post-WW2 America or the Soviet Union in their ambition, or threat to world peace.

    And while there are some horrible sects of Islam doing terrible things, the problem the US has is that it has funded and advised some of them to do the bidding of various dubious actors (Israel, the Saudis, Pakistan etc.). The whole she-bang is such a moral/strategic/ideological nightmare. But that's what happens when imperial ambitions began to badly over-reach competence and modesty.
  27. anon[300] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm
    Iran is the most manufactured 'threat' imaginable. It is a far weaker country on the other side of the world.

    The US no longer needs any oil from the Middle East. We could completely disengage from that region if we wanted to.

    In terms of military strength, Iran is no stronger than pre-1990 Saddam Hussein. It has a sub-replacement birth rate.

    There are very few Iranian Shiites in Al-Qaeda or ISIS, and have been few, if any, Iranian Shiite suicide bombers. Very few Iranians in the US have been connected to terrorism. The most 'dangerous' Iranian-American, as measured by threat to the globo-homo agenda, is/was Roosh.

    To the extent that the US 'has to defend Israel', Iran is pretty far from Israel too, with at least two countries in between.

    The entire creation of this narrative is for the sole purpose of keeping the military-industrial complex growing with artificially created demand for its otherwise unnecessary products and personnel.

    I have lost that piece of paper regarding hostage crisis of 1980

    Americans rescuer were very unhappy with the Mossad activities under the guise of diplomatic cover
    Mossad was busy trying to get hold of incriminating torture documents and financial agreements from the embassy
    It was also busy trying to rescue its own insiders but in the process were hurting US rescue mission .

  28. BUT this almost explains his strategy to ignore immigration…

    Look at the swing states. OH, PA, WI support the economy. That’s what he’s targeting.

    The states that favour immigration will be red or blue either way (exception MI – which is going blue in 2020 anyways).

    • Replies: @216
    The strategy revolves around pandering to non-whites, marginally increasing support. Supposedly this will also get white moderate Gary voters to return.

    The game is in turnout. Black turnout was down in '16. Could it go lower in '20?

    Maybe. If the campaign doesn't inflame blacks like it did with Kapernick, its possible an EconomyFirst strategy increases black take to 12% or even 15%.

    Also a risk that AZ goes Dem.

    There's a limit to boorishness in getting WWC votes, its maxed out. Only way to get more WWC is results. Maybe shit on econ orthodoxy and double min wage to 15/hr.

    Winning again relies on unlikeable crazy Dem pushing moderate Boomer/X back into GOP camp, or into centrist splinter party.
  29. @unit472
    With the US no longer dependent on Arab oil we need to rethink out geo-political posture in the MENA region. Allying with Saudi Arabia and its satellite sheikdoms no longer makes sense. Unfortunately we have no way to restore the US/Persian alliance that secured the region under the Shah.

    Since Iran will always be the dominant regional power we need to reach an accommodation with Iran but that can't happen as long as Iran is an Islamic dictatorship virulently hostile to Israel. I think Trump understands this and for that reason his 'maximum pressure' on the Ayatollahs makes sense. If the we can effect regime change in Iran both Iran and the USA win a huge strategic victory.

    I think you overlook two teensy things …

    – It is no longer about the ability to GET, but to DENY the oil to others (read: China, Japan and the EU, all far more dependent on the Gulf than the US ever were)

    – There is a reason the Gulf is called “Persian”. Kuwait, Bahrain and the Saudi oil fields are Shia, and all the fiefdoms of camel thieves anointed by the British are having a serious legitimacy crisis (not made better by falling oil revenues)

    Mohammed Reza Shah was installed by palace coup in 1941 because his father, an old-school Kurdish brigand, was not corrupt enough – then again in 1953 because Mossadegh was too reasonable …
    your jewishness is showing 😛

  30. @Rich
    Iran represents a threat to Saudi Arabia which means a threat to the Petrodollar which is the threat to the US. Iran's refusal to tow the line is also a threat to American hegemony and could encourage other states to follow suit. Many Americans are so confident in our wealth and prosperity that they don't recognize how precarious our situation actually is. If the Saudis fall, there's a good chance the Petrodollar's reign ends and with it the easy living we've enjoyed since the Reagan years. It's not quite as simple as many appear to want to believe.

    The U.S. doesn’t need Middle East oil and dollar hegemony exists because of our wealth and prosperity(biggest export market) not the other way around.

    The idea that American prosperity is reliant upon Saudi Arabia is the same kind of reasoning that led people to suppose Iraq was a military threat to the U.S. Third world countries don’t matter that much.

    In the U.S. case, where international trade as a percentage of GDP is quite small, where fossil fuels are abundant, where agricultural products are abundant, and where there are zero nearby military threats, even most first world countries don’t matter much. This means the U.S. can have a totally irrational and destructive foreign policy and it makes little difference.

    • Replies: @216
    The US doesn't want to lose influence in the Middle East. RussiaChina would like to displace the US, as would the nominal partners in the Western alliance (EU, India, Japan, Korea).

    Additional oil/gas production in the West encounters environmental opposition. Environmentalism is non-existent in the Middle East, and Western Greens don't chide Saudis for their emissions.
    , @reiner Tor

    In the U.S. case, where international trade as a percentage of GDP is quite small, where fossil fuels are abundant, where agricultural products are abundant, and where there are zero nearby military threats
     
    I'd add technological leadership in many (probably most, perhaps nearly all) fields.
    , @Rich
    Most economists appear to disagree with you. I'd personally prefer to live in Pat Buchanan's 'Fortress America' and say screw the rest of the world, but that would cause a major cultural shift in the US, one that most Americans would have difficulty adapting to. We have been trained to live in an easy money, easy credit society where saving is discouraged and most live paycheck to paycheck. Trump's attempt to bring manufacturing back to the US is a step in the right direction, but the telephone, video game, social media addicted youth of today could be too frail to work in a factory. Ron Paul's platform couldn't get a majority of republican primary votes, it'll never get a majority of American votes. We're on this globalist empire trek until the end, I think.

    I'm not saying you're not right in theory, I'm just saying your theory will never be put into practice. It's 'Petrodollar or bust' for the foreseeable future.
  31. unfortunately, few things trump does are political winners.

    he’s heading towards comfortably losing by a sizable margin.

    the trump 2020 campaign is pivoting towards a classic republican proven loser platform.

    brad parscale has no idea what he’s talking about – unless he’s just grifting, in which case he totally knows what he’s talking about.

    my thoughts: the trump people saw the 2020 polls and might be thinking that starting a big war is the only way trump can get re-elected. it has to be iraq scale or bigger – the smaller conflicts that obama continuously started don’t move the patriotard voting meter.

    it probably won’t work this time, like it always did in the past. the citizens have been tricked enough times and probably won’t unify behind the ‘war time’ president like they always did previously. meanwhile the demographics have changed enough that this play might not even work if we could turn the clock back to 2000.

    • Replies: @216
    A big war with Iran would likely tear the country apart.

    Land invasion requires a draft. One presumes that some blue states would actively obstruct its operation, if not publicly muse about secession. Anti-Semitic terrorism is likely to skyrocket, and the US would be under martial law.

    A smaller war with Iran, where the conventional military is wiped out in about a week; is the only scenario that ends positively for Trump. I wouldn't underestimate the psychological factor of Iranians seeing the conventional military destroyed so fast. There won't be any large uprising, but there might be a coup.
  32. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    BUT this almost explains his strategy to ignore immigration...

    Look at the swing states. OH, PA, WI support the economy. That's what he's targeting.

    The states that favour immigration will be red or blue either way (exception MI - which is going blue in 2020 anyways).

    The strategy revolves around pandering to non-whites, marginally increasing support. Supposedly this will also get white moderate Gary voters to return.

    The game is in turnout. Black turnout was down in ’16. Could it go lower in ’20?

    Maybe. If the campaign doesn’t inflame blacks like it did with Kapernick, its possible an EconomyFirst strategy increases black take to 12% or even 15%.

    Also a risk that AZ goes Dem.

    There’s a limit to boorishness in getting WWC votes, its maxed out. Only way to get more WWC is results. Maybe shit on econ orthodoxy and double min wage to 15/hr.

    Winning again relies on unlikeable crazy Dem pushing moderate Boomer/X back into GOP camp, or into centrist splinter party.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Only way to get more WWC is results.
     
    Sure, but there's a much larger swath of WWC that will be abandoning Blomrpf because of his failure on immigration than he will gain with +1% of blacks.

    Whites thought he was going to make America white again. The media was correct about that. Blormpf failed and people are seeing more and more invaders everywhere.
    , @Feryl

    There’s a limit to boorishness in getting WWC votes, its maxed out. Only way to get more WWC is results. Maybe shit on econ orthodoxy and double min wage to 15/hr.
     
    The autistic screeching that "Trump's personality" did the deal is something that the over-analyzers and the gruffly uncouth Boomer/early X-er cohort are more likely to believe. Occam's razor tells me that voters wanted no more war, no more unregulated immigration, and no more "free trade". One of Bill Clinton's advisors said, after the election, that Trump's stance on trade pushed him over the line in the Rust-belt, and allowed for the breaching of the Northern blue wall. Perhaps it's also Sun-Belters who misread the election, who legit think that America is turning into Mexico, blissfully ignorant that in the Upper Midwest, most immigrants are legal arrivals from Asia/Africa/India/The Middle East (are there are any expansive "barrios" in the Upper Midwest?). It's all the more baffling to hear Northern GOP die-hards bitch about "illegal" immigration, when it's virtually a non-issue in much of the Midwest (aside from some ag-centered small towns inundated by cheap labor, I suppose, but in the suburbs, it's not something that you notice or care about).

    You're right, I do wish that we'd finally get this non-sense out of our system that people vote based on who they'd want to party with.
  33. @prime noticer
    unfortunately, few things trump does are political winners.

    he's heading towards comfortably losing by a sizable margin.

    the trump 2020 campaign is pivoting towards a classic republican proven loser platform.

    brad parscale has no idea what he's talking about - unless he's just grifting, in which case he totally knows what he's talking about.

    my thoughts: the trump people saw the 2020 polls and might be thinking that starting a big war is the only way trump can get re-elected. it has to be iraq scale or bigger - the smaller conflicts that obama continuously started don't move the patriotard voting meter.

    it probably won't work this time, like it always did in the past. the citizens have been tricked enough times and probably won't unify behind the 'war time' president like they always did previously. meanwhile the demographics have changed enough that this play might not even work if we could turn the clock back to 2000.

    A big war with Iran would likely tear the country apart.

    Land invasion requires a draft. One presumes that some blue states would actively obstruct its operation, if not publicly muse about secession. Anti-Semitic terrorism is likely to skyrocket, and the US would be under martial law.

    A smaller war with Iran, where the conventional military is wiped out in about a week; is the only scenario that ends positively for Trump. I wouldn’t underestimate the psychological factor of Iranians seeing the conventional military destroyed so fast. There won’t be any large uprising, but there might be a coup.

    • Replies: @prime noticer
    not sure there is such a thing as a limited engagement with iran.
    , @Corvinus
    "A smaller war with Iran..."

    Trump owes a ton to Saudi Arabia and Israel on one hand, and to Russia on the other hand. Will Russia agree to this "smaller war with Iran"?

    "Trump could gain back a lot of moderate votes..."

    Absolutely not.

    "by handing over his twitter account to Pence."

    That will never happen.
  34. @EldnahYm
    The U.S. doesn't need Middle East oil and dollar hegemony exists because of our wealth and prosperity(biggest export market) not the other way around.

    The idea that American prosperity is reliant upon Saudi Arabia is the same kind of reasoning that led people to suppose Iraq was a military threat to the U.S. Third world countries don't matter that much.

    In the U.S. case, where international trade as a percentage of GDP is quite small, where fossil fuels are abundant, where agricultural products are abundant, and where there are zero nearby military threats, even most first world countries don't matter much. This means the U.S. can have a totally irrational and destructive foreign policy and it makes little difference.

    The US doesn’t want to lose influence in the Middle East. RussiaChina would like to displace the US, as would the nominal partners in the Western alliance (EU, India, Japan, Korea).

    Additional oil/gas production in the West encounters environmental opposition. Environmentalism is non-existent in the Middle East, and Western Greens don’t chide Saudis for their emissions.

    • Replies: @EldnahYm
    The U.S. does not currently get anything from being in the Middle East. The U.S. does not "control" anything. I highly doubt Russia, China, or a joke like the EU could manage anything better, and China and Russia have less money to throw around.

    The United States is the world's largest oil producer, but somehow you think environmentalists hold its energy industry hostage. Not the case.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The rise of the Greens as a guarantor of our perpetual involvement in the Middle East... depressing, very depressing.
  35. @216
    The strategy revolves around pandering to non-whites, marginally increasing support. Supposedly this will also get white moderate Gary voters to return.

    The game is in turnout. Black turnout was down in '16. Could it go lower in '20?

    Maybe. If the campaign doesn't inflame blacks like it did with Kapernick, its possible an EconomyFirst strategy increases black take to 12% or even 15%.

    Also a risk that AZ goes Dem.

    There's a limit to boorishness in getting WWC votes, its maxed out. Only way to get more WWC is results. Maybe shit on econ orthodoxy and double min wage to 15/hr.

    Winning again relies on unlikeable crazy Dem pushing moderate Boomer/X back into GOP camp, or into centrist splinter party.

    Only way to get more WWC is results.

    Sure, but there’s a much larger swath of WWC that will be abandoning Blomrpf because of his failure on immigration than he will gain with +1% of blacks.

    Whites thought he was going to make America white again. The media was correct about that. Blormpf failed and people are seeing more and more invaders everywhere.

    • Replies: @216
    It isn't so much that people will think:

    "Trump weak on immigration, vote for Biden"

    That person will just stay home or protest vote.

    Its more

    "Trump is corrupt, narcissistic and a liar, who hasn't done anything populist"

    That person will vote Dem.

    Trump could gain back a lot of moderate votes by handing over his twitter account to Pence.
    , @eah
    Whites thought he was going to make America white again.

    That's pretty much a ridiculous straw man -- reasonable people have reasonable expectations, and most Whites are reasonable -- it was clear Trump was not a White Nationalist (duh) -- that he seemed strongly opposed to war and illegal immigration, and wasn't HRC, was enough for many.

    I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but my expectation was that he would do, or try very hard to do, the following, all of which he talked up during his campaign: stop absurdities like 'catch and release' -- end birthright citizenship -- do away with the 'diversity lottery' -- dramatically curtail the refugee program -- use E-Verify to enforce laws against employing illegals -- stop instigating war -- stop job losses by re-negotiating trade -- try to stop the racially-charged talk of 'white privilege'.

    After the abusive asylum 'caravan' scam, I would add concluding a 'safe third country' agreement with Mexico.

    He has not done any of the above, nor has he really tried -- barely a couple of months after taking office he attacked Syria -- in the 2019 SOTU he said he wanted the highest levels of immigration ever (mostly non-whites of course) -- his servility to Jews and Israel is more than disgusting.

    I was always agnostic about a wall -- enforcing existing laws against employing illegals ought to be enough to get many to self-deport, and should dissuade others from coming.
    , @Thomm

    Whites thought he was going to make America white again.
     
    No one except 70-IQ WN wiggers actually thought that.

    We thought that he would halt illegal immigration and curb H1-B abuses, but that is it.

    'Making America White Again' would mean expelling people who are already US citizens, which will never happen, not the least of which because the country they are being expelled to would have to give them new citizenship even if they never lived there. How would those logisitics work? These are questions too lofty for 70-IQ wiggers.

    Remember what Heartiste used to say :

    99% of White Trashionalism is nothing more than the bottom decile of white men getting mad that the bottom decile of white women no longer are forced to be with them.
    , @Feryl
    This sort of base ID politics is useless, in the sense that anyone with half a brain understands that all Americans who don't reside in the top 20% generally feel that society has failed big time for t least 30 years; and they feel that way because it is true. Saying that the mane reason the past was great was because of the white people is pretty lame. And not accurate, any way, because the econ. policies of the last 40 years would've hammered everyone even if demographics had not changed. Slashing taxes on rich people, de-regulating the markets, off-shoring etc. are all awful policies which would still have destroyed everything even if the borders had remained shut. Each decade since the 80's has seen a dizzying rise in the number of super-rich, while the middle class thins and lesser skilled workers are told to dive into empty swimming pools.

    Your anger needs to be targeted at air-headed and devious elites (and wannabe elites), who crassly are indifferent to the standing of all demographic groups and regions which are not in the top 20%.

  36. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Only way to get more WWC is results.
     
    Sure, but there's a much larger swath of WWC that will be abandoning Blomrpf because of his failure on immigration than he will gain with +1% of blacks.

    Whites thought he was going to make America white again. The media was correct about that. Blormpf failed and people are seeing more and more invaders everywhere.

    It isn’t so much that people will think:

    “Trump weak on immigration, vote for Biden”

    That person will just stay home or protest vote.

    Its more

    “Trump is corrupt, narcissistic and a liar, who hasn’t done anything populist”

    That person will vote Dem.

    Trump could gain back a lot of moderate votes by handing over his twitter account to Pence.

  37. @216
    The US doesn't want to lose influence in the Middle East. RussiaChina would like to displace the US, as would the nominal partners in the Western alliance (EU, India, Japan, Korea).

    Additional oil/gas production in the West encounters environmental opposition. Environmentalism is non-existent in the Middle East, and Western Greens don't chide Saudis for their emissions.

    The U.S. does not currently get anything from being in the Middle East. The U.S. does not “control” anything. I highly doubt Russia, China, or a joke like the EU could manage anything better, and China and Russia have less money to throw around.

    The United States is the world’s largest oil producer, but somehow you think environmentalists hold its energy industry hostage. Not the case.

  38. @Achmed E. Newman
    It's good to see all that brown, even if this is just Republicans. I'd bet that just 4 years ago, some other colors would be more prominent. Even though he's not getting the job done, Donald Trump has pushed the immigration issue to the forefront.

    For those who haven't clicked the link, over all the sample, just under 20% listed "Immigration" as tops, with "Economy in General" a close 2nd (1.2 percentage points lower). "Beating up on countries in the Middle East" doesn't appear, and "Other" is #7 of the categories with 5% picking it as most important, even if you figure it might include that.

    It's not 1979 or 2001 anymore. Nobody wants more foreign wars, and the smart people know we are too broke for it anyway. The real question is who do the Republican pols care about pleasing, the voters or the donors?

    Unquestionably. I’ve been tracking this since the mid-2000s, back when immigration would poll as the top concern for ~5% of Republican voters and ~3% of the total population.

  39. @Rich
    Iran represents a threat to Saudi Arabia which means a threat to the Petrodollar which is the threat to the US. Iran's refusal to tow the line is also a threat to American hegemony and could encourage other states to follow suit. Many Americans are so confident in our wealth and prosperity that they don't recognize how precarious our situation actually is. If the Saudis fall, there's a good chance the Petrodollar's reign ends and with it the easy living we've enjoyed since the Reagan years. It's not quite as simple as many appear to want to believe.

    Wrt the US losing its status as the world’s reserve currency–and thus also its status as the Petrocurrency–is it a question of if or when? I suspect the latter, so I see little reason in delaying the inevitable.

    • Replies: @Rich
    You're right, all empires fall, but we don't have to go quietly into the night. We can keep this Ponzi scheme going for a hundred or more years, then maybe we can come up with something better. If the US dollar goes down, our very high standard of living goes down with it. Look at the world before WW2, before the US took over, poverty was rampant even in Western countries, we don't need to take that chance.
  40. @216
    The US doesn't want to lose influence in the Middle East. RussiaChina would like to displace the US, as would the nominal partners in the Western alliance (EU, India, Japan, Korea).

    Additional oil/gas production in the West encounters environmental opposition. Environmentalism is non-existent in the Middle East, and Western Greens don't chide Saudis for their emissions.

    The rise of the Greens as a guarantor of our perpetual involvement in the Middle East… depressing, very depressing.

    • Replies: @216

    The United States is the world’s largest oil producer, but somehow you think environmentalists hold its energy industry hostage. Not the case.
     
    Does the term ANWR ring a bell?

    Every pipeline under construction has lawsuits and greens obstructing it.

    The rise of the Greens as a guarantor of our perpetual involvement in the Middle East… depressing, very depressing.
     
    Otoh, Greens in Europe are basically forced to advocate leniency on Russia (gas), lest they otherwise have to use nuclear as an energy source.
    , @Oblivionrecurs
    Daily reminder the Green movements are responsible for rolling blackouts in California and increasing emissions in Germany
    , @Mr. Rational

    The rise of the Greens as a guarantor of our perpetual involvement in the Middle East…
     
    Greens have always been a front for the fossil fuel industry.  "Friends of the Earth" was bankrolled by ARCO executive Robert O. Anderson, Jerry Brown's family made their money in oil dealings with the Indonesian military junta, and "Green New Deal" fraudster Mark Z. Jacobson enjoys a chair endowed by oil baron Jay Precourt.

    As @216 notes, Greens are really only against one thing:  nuclear power.  That also happens to be the one thing that can replace coal, oil and gas.  As France has tried to be more "renewable", its fossil fuel consumption and emissions have been going UP.  You'll notice that, with the fate of the planet supposedly in the balance, they are not screaming to reverse course.
  41. 216 says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    The rise of the Greens as a guarantor of our perpetual involvement in the Middle East... depressing, very depressing.

    The United States is the world’s largest oil producer, but somehow you think environmentalists hold its energy industry hostage. Not the case.

    Does the term ANWR ring a bell?

    Every pipeline under construction has lawsuits and greens obstructing it.

    The rise of the Greens as a guarantor of our perpetual involvement in the Middle East… depressing, very depressing.

    Otoh, Greens in Europe are basically forced to advocate leniency on Russia (gas), lest they otherwise have to use nuclear as an energy source.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    That first response wasn't from me.

    There is a lot of risibility in the world of political alignments, but the "greens" being against nuclear energy is probably the most risible of all. How can anyone take them seriously?
  42. @Audacious Epigone
    Wrt the US losing its status as the world's reserve currency--and thus also its status as the Petrocurrency--is it a question of if or when? I suspect the latter, so I see little reason in delaying the inevitable.

    You’re right, all empires fall, but we don’t have to go quietly into the night. We can keep this Ponzi scheme going for a hundred or more years, then maybe we can come up with something better. If the US dollar goes down, our very high standard of living goes down with it. Look at the world before WW2, before the US took over, poverty was rampant even in Western countries, we don’t need to take that chance.

  43. @Thomm
    Iran is the most manufactured 'threat' imaginable. It is a far weaker country on the other side of the world.

    The US no longer needs any oil from the Middle East. We could completely disengage from that region if we wanted to.

    In terms of military strength, Iran is no stronger than pre-1990 Saddam Hussein. It has a sub-replacement birth rate.

    There are very few Iranian Shiites in Al-Qaeda or ISIS, and have been few, if any, Iranian Shiite suicide bombers. Very few Iranians in the US have been connected to terrorism. The most 'dangerous' Iranian-American, as measured by threat to the globo-homo agenda, is/was Roosh.

    To the extent that the US 'has to defend Israel', Iran is pretty far from Israel too, with at least two countries in between.

    The entire creation of this narrative is for the sole purpose of keeping the military-industrial complex growing with artificially created demand for its otherwise unnecessary products and personnel.

    Agreed. I find the Trump White House’s fixation on Iran bizarre. They pose no fundamental dire threat to the United States. Israel is not the USA. Saudi Arabia is not the USA.

    Persians have been around for a long time, and they’ll continue to be around for a long time after the Saudi Ponzi scheme ends. It’s best to make peace with that reality now if we’re serious about not getting into more Middle Eastern fiascos.

  44. My hope is that this is all tough talk and no action so Trump can use the opportunity on the campaign trail to do a “there’s no bears here, bear patrol must be working like a charm.”

  45. Umm…

    Has anyone at the Daily Wire ever accused AOC of being “anti-white”

    Are they ever going to call their co-religionists “anti-Christian”

    Or are they going to virtue signal to Boomercons.

    She has impunity.

    Get it.

    Impunity

    Welcome to intersectionality, population: mass immigration

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Impunity"

    This is exactly why Ill ham Omar is not "brave" for pointing out obvious truths about our political corruption. She's a 4 tier diversity superstar and therefor untouchable. A little bit of pushback from neocon geldings means nothing. One is not courageous for taking an action which has no negative consequences.
  46. @Achmed E. Newman
    I know none of those hostage were killed, Thomm. My point is that there are plenty of people who do not follow politics like unz commenters. That hostage crisis was A BIG DEAL 40 years ago, being at the end of the only-1/2-hour nightly news broadcasts every night for what, 444, days? There are people that remember nothing but "Iran bad", and plenty of people around at that time can vote today.

    Like I wrote above though, it may not matter what voters think anyway.

    It’s a very emotional thing for a lot of older voters. In the military, much of the impetus for joining among the current senior brass was the Reagan spirit: which was forged not least in the humiliating experiences of the proceeding years, the hostage crisis being particularly searing. As I’ve mentioned before, being hawkish is not the same thing as supporting “regime change” abroad anymore, as the GOP figured out the hard way when Trump barged his way to the nomination not least on this issue, but it does mean that any sort of non-aggressive policy toward Iran needs the right packaging.

    With such voters, if you frame it in terms of not throwing trillions more dollars down the drain for “democracy spreading” while America itself is left to rot, and throw in some neocon/Saud bashing on top of it, you get a lot further than pretending that the Iranians are nice guys who wish us well or anything vaguely “dove-ish”. I was quite sympathetic to Obama on the need for a more rational policy concerning Iran, but-apart from failing to realize that Tehran cared way more about who ruled in Damascus than pieces of paper in Switzerland-he didn’t do a great job with the optics.

  47. • Replies: @216
    Contd

    https://www.tpusa.com/aboutus/advisory-council/

    One black

    A couple white hispanics

    The diplomathot is Arab

    Not a single Asian
  48. @216
    A big war with Iran would likely tear the country apart.

    Land invasion requires a draft. One presumes that some blue states would actively obstruct its operation, if not publicly muse about secession. Anti-Semitic terrorism is likely to skyrocket, and the US would be under martial law.

    A smaller war with Iran, where the conventional military is wiped out in about a week; is the only scenario that ends positively for Trump. I wouldn't underestimate the psychological factor of Iranians seeing the conventional military destroyed so fast. There won't be any large uprising, but there might be a coup.

    not sure there is such a thing as a limited engagement with iran.

    • Replies: @216
    Operation Preying Mantis
  49. @prime noticer
    not sure there is such a thing as a limited engagement with iran.

    Operation Preying Mantis

  50. @216
    Quite O/T

    https://twitter.com/turbovlach/status/1140292698022305795

    https://www.tpusa.com/aboutus/advisory-council/jill-kelley/

    WTF????

    Remember her

    Contd

    https://www.tpusa.com/aboutus/advisory-council/

    One black

    A couple white hispanics

    The diplomathot is Arab

    Not a single Asian

  51. I’m sorry, are the brown states where most of the Latinxs and Somalis ended up, while the yellow states are where most of the Asians ended up?

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    The yellow states have less immigration in general. Indiana is yellow and nonwhite immigrants are almost invisible in large parts of the state. Indianapolis, the largest city, was one percent Hispanic in 1999. It's gone up to ten percent over the last twenty years but that is still relatively low. Whites don't feel threatened as long as they are the majority.
  52. Want is simply not a real warrant. I am not a “peace advocate”.

    There is only one real question(s), the rationale for war. There are plenty of reasons to mistrust Iran – boat loads. And there are plenty of reasons why they should be checked.

    But thus far until demonstrated otherwise, they are not a threat to the US or her allies. There is no indication that Iran launched an attack against Japan. But I am certainly willing to hear the case to assess whether one exists.

    • Replies: @anon
    This one is more applicable to US than it is to Iran . US will beat Iran both by magnitude and number of breaches of the trusts that it supposedly offers other countries


    There are plenty of reasons to mistrust ((())))) – boat loads. And there are plenty of reasons why they should be checked."
  53. Pompeo: US Has Full Range of Options, Including Military Options, on Iran

    Yemen’s Houthis Downed US Drone, CENTCOM Blames Iran

    Pompeo Blames Iran For Taliban Attack As Administration ‘Itches For War,’ Says Expert

    What a clownshow. Eagerly awaiting the announcement that the F-35 is actually an evil scheme by Iran to incapacitate the Coalition of the Shilling.

    Is there anyone who has some honor and respect for a working State left in his asscrack?

    Malignant Manatee and the Bolt-On Guy should have been taken care of a long time ago.

  54. @216
    https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1140455942678429697

    Umm...

    Has anyone at the Daily Wire ever accused AOC of being "anti-white"

    Are they ever going to call their co-religionists "anti-Christian"

    Or are they going to virtue signal to Boomercons.

    She has impunity.

    Get it.

    Impunity

    Welcome to intersectionality, population: mass immigration

    “Impunity”

    This is exactly why Ill ham Omar is not “brave” for pointing out obvious truths about our political corruption. She’s a 4 tier diversity superstar and therefor untouchable. A little bit of pushback from neocon geldings means nothing. One is not courageous for taking an action which has no negative consequences.

  55. @The Alarmist
    I'm sorry, are the brown states where most of the Latinxs and Somalis ended up, while the yellow states are where most of the Asians ended up?

    The yellow states have less immigration in general. Indiana is yellow and nonwhite immigrants are almost invisible in large parts of the state. Indianapolis, the largest city, was one percent Hispanic in 1999. It’s gone up to ten percent over the last twenty years but that is still relatively low. Whites don’t feel threatened as long as they are the majority.

  56. The problem is that Trump needs a distraction from his own legal issues, so his Jewish neo-con handlers will do whatever is necessary to manufacture another Gulf of Tonkin incident. Yet, maybe Trump will have his own Wag The Dog moment? That would mean he would be checking his own ego.

  57. @216
    A big war with Iran would likely tear the country apart.

    Land invasion requires a draft. One presumes that some blue states would actively obstruct its operation, if not publicly muse about secession. Anti-Semitic terrorism is likely to skyrocket, and the US would be under martial law.

    A smaller war with Iran, where the conventional military is wiped out in about a week; is the only scenario that ends positively for Trump. I wouldn't underestimate the psychological factor of Iranians seeing the conventional military destroyed so fast. There won't be any large uprising, but there might be a coup.

    “A smaller war with Iran…”

    Trump owes a ton to Saudi Arabia and Israel on one hand, and to Russia on the other hand. Will Russia agree to this “smaller war with Iran”?

    “Trump could gain back a lot of moderate votes…”

    Absolutely not.

    “by handing over his twitter account to Pence.”

    That will never happen.

  58. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Bonus: Persia doesn’t get wrecked and America First doesn’t mean thousands of American lives and trillions of American dollars squandered attacking a country that poses no threat to us."

    Double bonus: The West doesn't get flooded with a few million military aged Persian male "refugees" following the attack.

    Why not flood our nation with Persians? Hasn’t Roosh proved his mettle with his prodigious manospheric tomes?

  59. @unit472
    With the US no longer dependent on Arab oil we need to rethink out geo-political posture in the MENA region. Allying with Saudi Arabia and its satellite sheikdoms no longer makes sense. Unfortunately we have no way to restore the US/Persian alliance that secured the region under the Shah.

    Since Iran will always be the dominant regional power we need to reach an accommodation with Iran but that can't happen as long as Iran is an Islamic dictatorship virulently hostile to Israel. I think Trump understands this and for that reason his 'maximum pressure' on the Ayatollahs makes sense. If the we can effect regime change in Iran both Iran and the USA win a huge strategic victory.

    “Unfortunately we have no way to restore the US/Persian alliance that secured the region under the Shah.”

    Which had been achieved by underhanded ways in the early 1950’s.

  60. “Which had been achieved by underhanded ways in the early 1950’s.”

    The coupe was not a US event. We supported it. But when the CIA smoke clears. The Iranian elite would have conducted the matter with or without US support.

    ————————————–

    Laugh.

    The democrats may need this,

    “The problem is that Trump needs a distraction from his own legal issues, so his Jewish neo-con handlers will do whatever is necessary to manufacture another Gulf of Tonkin incident”

    But President Trump is by far and away the least at threat from legal action. The Gulf of Tonkin was not a manufactured event. It was a misread by the US Navy and their inconclusive mishandling created an opportunity to do what the US was going to do regardless of the incident — support S. Vietnam.
    —————————–

    The real issue here for the US is our security agreements with Japan since the end of WWII.

    ” ARTICLE V
    Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

    http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/mutual_cooperation_treaty.pdf

    https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-japan/

    Japanese position before —

    https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/asia-and-australia/japan-s-abe-warns-iran-u-s-of-sliding-into-accidental-conflict-in-tehran-visit-1.7363677

    Japanese position now —

    http://www.newsonjapan.com/html/newsdesk/article/125102.php

  61. @EldnahYm
    The U.S. doesn't need Middle East oil and dollar hegemony exists because of our wealth and prosperity(biggest export market) not the other way around.

    The idea that American prosperity is reliant upon Saudi Arabia is the same kind of reasoning that led people to suppose Iraq was a military threat to the U.S. Third world countries don't matter that much.

    In the U.S. case, where international trade as a percentage of GDP is quite small, where fossil fuels are abundant, where agricultural products are abundant, and where there are zero nearby military threats, even most first world countries don't matter much. This means the U.S. can have a totally irrational and destructive foreign policy and it makes little difference.

    In the U.S. case, where international trade as a percentage of GDP is quite small, where fossil fuels are abundant, where agricultural products are abundant, and where there are zero nearby military threats

    I’d add technological leadership in many (probably most, perhaps nearly all) fields.

  62. • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Yeah, and I heard the Iranians were SMIRKING, too.
  63. @Audacious Epigone
    The rise of the Greens as a guarantor of our perpetual involvement in the Middle East... depressing, very depressing.

    Daily reminder the Green movements are responsible for rolling blackouts in California and increasing emissions in Germany

  64. eah says:

    Trump is such a fucking idiot — he: bleats on and on about low black unemployment even though they did not and will not vote for him; kisses Jew ass even though they did not and will not vote for him; bellows about “fake news” etc like it’s 2016 again — except it’s not — it’s 2019 and he’s been President since Jan 2017 — so he has a track record as President to run on — this is what voters will pay attention to now — including and especially those who voted for him in 2016 — he sure as hell has not won over and will not win over any of the HRC voters — if there are intelligent people working for Trump, there is no sign of it.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman, 216
    • Replies: @eah, @Audacious Epigone
    The only contingent he has made some inroads with are former Never Trump Republicans. Small, electorally insignificant. If he wins reelection it will be on account of the Dem nominee scaring white boomers with "socialism" so much that they vote for Trump as the safe choice.
  65. @Audacious Epigone
    The rise of the Greens as a guarantor of our perpetual involvement in the Middle East... depressing, very depressing.

    The rise of the Greens as a guarantor of our perpetual involvement in the Middle East…

    Greens have always been a front for the fossil fuel industry.  “Friends of the Earth” was bankrolled by ARCO executive Robert O. Anderson, Jerry Brown’s family made their money in oil dealings with the Indonesian military junta, and “Green New Deal” fraudster Mark Z. Jacobson enjoys a chair endowed by oil baron Jay Precourt.

    As notes, Greens are really only against one thing:  nuclear power.  That also happens to be the one thing that can replace coal, oil and gas.  As France has tried to be more “renewable”, its fossil fuel consumption and emissions have been going UP.  You’ll notice that, with the fate of the planet supposedly in the balance, they are not screaming to reverse course.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    *mind blown*
  66. eah says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Only way to get more WWC is results.
     
    Sure, but there's a much larger swath of WWC that will be abandoning Blomrpf because of his failure on immigration than he will gain with +1% of blacks.

    Whites thought he was going to make America white again. The media was correct about that. Blormpf failed and people are seeing more and more invaders everywhere.

    Whites thought he was going to make America white again.

    That’s pretty much a ridiculous straw man — reasonable people have reasonable expectations, and most Whites are reasonable — it was clear Trump was not a White Nationalist (duh) — that he seemed strongly opposed to war and illegal immigration, and wasn’t HRC, was enough for many.

    I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but my expectation was that he would do, or try very hard to do, the following, all of which he talked up during his campaign: stop absurdities like ‘catch and release’ — end birthright citizenship — do away with the ‘diversity lottery’ — dramatically curtail the refugee program — use E-Verify to enforce laws against employing illegals — stop instigating war — stop job losses by re-negotiating trade — try to stop the racially-charged talk of ‘white privilege’.

    After the abusive asylum ‘caravan’ scam, I would add concluding a ‘safe third country’ agreement with Mexico.

    He has not done any of the above, nor has he really tried — barely a couple of months after taking office he attacked Syria — in the 2019 SOTU he said he wanted the highest levels of immigration ever (mostly non-whites of course) — his servility to Jews and Israel is more than disgusting.

    I was always agnostic about a wall — enforcing existing laws against employing illegals ought to be enough to get many to self-deport, and should dissuade others from coming.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @eah
    https://twitter.com/westland_will/status/1140857907526791169
  67. “Why not flood our nation with Persians? Hasn’t Roosh proved his mettle with his prodigious manospheric tomes?”

    Good point.

  68. anon[219] • Disclaimer says:

    “Could it be that while our attention is now completely on the Persian Gulf, the Neo-cohens are actually plotting war with Russia?”

    The fact that Trump denied the report and then later denounced it as treason suggests that he was indeed aware of it (at least on some level) and either approved it or ignored it. It’s called plausible deniability, and this story reeks of it.

  69. And don’t forget John McCain’s song…

    ‘Barbara Ann’ as ‘Bomb Iran’. That would have been funny if he were not so visibly excited about the prospect of another war, even as the Iraq War was obviously and deliberately turned into a lengthy stalemate for profit.

    That was the moment when I realized that the military industrial complex just manufactures artificial demand for its otherwise needless products and personnel.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Feryl
    McCain was a loser, elevated by nepotism and faithfully servicing his masters. Just like GW Bush. Gee, maybe I shouldn't be so hard on Reagan; at least he put the work in, and sincerely was doing what he thought was best. But this is more a generational issue, with GIs like Reagan understanding virtue and integrity (with some misguided failures along the way), while Silents like McCain LARP as ass kickers (while being inwardly neurotic), and Boomers like Bush demonstrating Jeff "The Dude" Lebowski levels of concentration span and attention to detail; it's funny and amusing at first, but woefully ill-equipped for sustained levels of responsible behavior.
  70. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Only way to get more WWC is results.
     
    Sure, but there's a much larger swath of WWC that will be abandoning Blomrpf because of his failure on immigration than he will gain with +1% of blacks.

    Whites thought he was going to make America white again. The media was correct about that. Blormpf failed and people are seeing more and more invaders everywhere.

    Whites thought he was going to make America white again.

    No one except 70-IQ WN wiggers actually thought that.

    We thought that he would halt illegal immigration and curb H1-B abuses, but that is it.

    ‘Making America White Again’ would mean expelling people who are already US citizens, which will never happen, not the least of which because the country they are being expelled to would have to give them new citizenship even if they never lived there. How would those logisitics work? These are questions too lofty for 70-IQ wiggers.

    Remember what Heartiste used to say :

    99% of White Trashionalism is nothing more than the bottom decile of white men getting mad that the bottom decile of white women no longer are forced to be with them.

    • Replies: @Anonymousse
    Yes population exchanges are a white nationalist myth. They have never occurred once in human history and especially not multiple times in the 20th century.
    , @Mr. Rational

    ‘Making America White Again’ would mean expelling people who are already US citizens, which will never happen, not the least of which because the country they are being expelled to would have to give them new citizenship even if they never lived there.
     
    John McCain was born in Panama, yet when he was brought to the United States he was not processed as an alien.  He inherited US citizenship from his parents.

    ‘How would those logisitics work?
     
    All first-generation immigrants and illegals still hold foreign citizenship.  All of their children inherit citizenship in the countries of their parents.  Mexico claims all of its offspring for I don't know how many generations, so we should use the same standard.  As for logistics, putting them 20 miles off their native coast in a rubber boat and telling them which way to row would be sufficient.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Schoolmarm disapprove of the portmanteau directed at whites of low social status. Please refrain good sir, thanks.
  71. @unit472
    With the US no longer dependent on Arab oil we need to rethink out geo-political posture in the MENA region. Allying with Saudi Arabia and its satellite sheikdoms no longer makes sense. Unfortunately we have no way to restore the US/Persian alliance that secured the region under the Shah.

    Since Iran will always be the dominant regional power we need to reach an accommodation with Iran but that can't happen as long as Iran is an Islamic dictatorship virulently hostile to Israel. I think Trump understands this and for that reason his 'maximum pressure' on the Ayatollahs makes sense. If the we can effect regime change in Iran both Iran and the USA win a huge strategic victory.

    If the we can effect regime change in Iran both Iran and the USA win a huge strategic victory.

    Wait… so… we’re going to help out Iran by destroying it? “If you kill your enemies they win” is now an actual neocon policy position? We can call it the Trudeau-Kristol doctrine!

  72. @Thomm

    Whites thought he was going to make America white again.
     
    No one except 70-IQ WN wiggers actually thought that.

    We thought that he would halt illegal immigration and curb H1-B abuses, but that is it.

    'Making America White Again' would mean expelling people who are already US citizens, which will never happen, not the least of which because the country they are being expelled to would have to give them new citizenship even if they never lived there. How would those logisitics work? These are questions too lofty for 70-IQ wiggers.

    Remember what Heartiste used to say :

    99% of White Trashionalism is nothing more than the bottom decile of white men getting mad that the bottom decile of white women no longer are forced to be with them.

    Yes population exchanges are a white nationalist myth. They have never occurred once in human history and especially not multiple times in the 20th century.

  73. Funny with all this recent Iran bullshit that North Korea is suddenly not a threat anymore (it never was to begin with).

    I am so tired of this manufactured conflict with petty nations.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  74. @Achmed E. Newman
    It's good to see all that brown, even if this is just Republicans. I'd bet that just 4 years ago, some other colors would be more prominent. Even though he's not getting the job done, Donald Trump has pushed the immigration issue to the forefront.

    For those who haven't clicked the link, over all the sample, just under 20% listed "Immigration" as tops, with "Economy in General" a close 2nd (1.2 percentage points lower). "Beating up on countries in the Middle East" doesn't appear, and "Other" is #7 of the categories with 5% picking it as most important, even if you figure it might include that.

    It's not 1979 or 2001 anymore. Nobody wants more foreign wars, and the smart people know we are too broke for it anyway. The real question is who do the Republican pols care about pleasing, the voters or the donors?

    Sadly, the very reason immigration is now a big concern is exactly because the issue was so mishandled in the 90’s and 2000’s (and even in the 2000’s, ordinary Republicans firmly said no to amnesty in defiance of the traitor elites, knowing what “amnesty” helped do to CA). A problem doesn’t become a problem until…It’s a problem.

    The real question is who do the Republican pols care about pleasing, the voters or the donors?

    They didn’t care when they passed the ’90 immigration act, or when they voted for NAFTA. And they care even less nowadays. If they cared, they would stop building such large houses, and would stop buying as many luxury vehicles. They’d stop paying lots of money for hair cuts.

    And which voters are we talking about? The top 20% (who are the most reliable voters and donors) overwhelmingly have supported free trade and open borders. In the Trump era, many of them have defected to the Dems (if they weren’t there already). But for the remaining GOP elites, do you know how grossed out they are by passing legislation that’s in line with what ordinary people wanted, and got, in the 1930’s-1970’s? Do you really think they want to go back to the days of tightly regulated markets, strong unions, and high taxes on rich people? Think again. There are only so many people who “single issue” vote on guns and abortion (the only two issues that the GOP consistently handles with any guts). The GOP became the dominant party in the 80’s, so that’s what they are still invested in. At the moment they benefit from the Dems being the party of 2085, who alienate tons of working-middle class whites. The GOP has to be more populist to take advantage of the ID politics clowning that’s drowning the Dems right now.

  75. @Thomm
    And don't forget John McCain's song...

    'Barbara Ann' as 'Bomb Iran'. That would have been funny if he were not so visibly excited about the prospect of another war, even as the Iraq War was obviously and deliberately turned into a lengthy stalemate for profit.

    That was the moment when I realized that the military industrial complex just manufactures artificial demand for its otherwise needless products and personnel.

    McCain was a loser, elevated by nepotism and faithfully servicing his masters. Just like GW Bush. Gee, maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on Reagan; at least he put the work in, and sincerely was doing what he thought was best. But this is more a generational issue, with GIs like Reagan understanding virtue and integrity (with some misguided failures along the way), while Silents like McCain LARP as ass kickers (while being inwardly neurotic), and Boomers like Bush demonstrating Jeff “The Dude” Lebowski levels of concentration span and attention to detail; it’s funny and amusing at first, but woefully ill-equipped for sustained levels of responsible behavior.

  76. @Thomm

    Whites thought he was going to make America white again.
     
    No one except 70-IQ WN wiggers actually thought that.

    We thought that he would halt illegal immigration and curb H1-B abuses, but that is it.

    'Making America White Again' would mean expelling people who are already US citizens, which will never happen, not the least of which because the country they are being expelled to would have to give them new citizenship even if they never lived there. How would those logisitics work? These are questions too lofty for 70-IQ wiggers.

    Remember what Heartiste used to say :

    99% of White Trashionalism is nothing more than the bottom decile of white men getting mad that the bottom decile of white women no longer are forced to be with them.

    ‘Making America White Again’ would mean expelling people who are already US citizens, which will never happen, not the least of which because the country they are being expelled to would have to give them new citizenship even if they never lived there.

    John McCain was born in Panama, yet when he was brought to the United States he was not processed as an alien.  He inherited US citizenship from his parents.

    ‘How would those logisitics work?

    All first-generation immigrants and illegals still hold foreign citizenship.  All of their children inherit citizenship in the countries of their parents.  Mexico claims all of its offspring for I don’t know how many generations, so we should use the same standard.  As for logistics, putting them 20 miles off their native coast in a rubber boat and telling them which way to row would be sufficient.

    • Replies: @Thomm

    All first-generation immigrants and illegals still hold foreign citizenship. All of their children inherit citizenship in the countries of their parents.
     
    OK; in theory, this is not bad.

    But you do realize that in practice, you will have to get ALL those countries (all 150+ of them) to give citizenship all these new people, the 2nd gen of whom have never actually lived in the country that you want them to be given citizenship in.

    How, exactly, will you get all those countries to agree to that?
  77. @Parbes
    "The kidnapping and torturing to death of CIA station chief William Buckley blah blah blah....."

    CIA slimebags like Buckley, together with their henchmen in pro-U.S. right-wing regimes around the world, have been kidnapping, torturing and killing countless numbers of people for decades (ever since WWII, in fact), whose only "crime" was to stand up for their rights and their nations' independence and freedom from U.S. subversion, domination and exploitation. So what if someone turned the tables once, for a change, and gave the innocent babe-in-the-woods Buckley a dose of his own medicine? I wish more people - especially the current Russian and Chinese governments - would do similar to the Buckley-ilk and their pet dog fifth columnists.

    CRY ME A RIVER, you neocon coward turd.

    Doing this crap was more justifiable when it could be argued that other regimes/ideologies were worse than what the US stood for, and posed a legit threat to us.

    But after the fall of Soviet Union, it becomes much harder to rationalize screwing around with so many countries. “Better dead than red”, right? Modern Russia and China, whatever their faults and ambitions, certainly are nowhere near post-WW2 America or the Soviet Union in their ambition, or threat to world peace.

    And while there are some horrible sects of Islam doing terrible things, the problem the US has is that it has funded and advised some of them to do the bidding of various dubious actors (Israel, the Saudis, Pakistan etc.). The whole she-bang is such a moral/strategic/ideological nightmare. But that’s what happens when imperial ambitions began to badly over-reach competence and modesty.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  78. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Only way to get more WWC is results.
     
    Sure, but there's a much larger swath of WWC that will be abandoning Blomrpf because of his failure on immigration than he will gain with +1% of blacks.

    Whites thought he was going to make America white again. The media was correct about that. Blormpf failed and people are seeing more and more invaders everywhere.

    This sort of base ID politics is useless, in the sense that anyone with half a brain understands that all Americans who don’t reside in the top 20% generally feel that society has failed big time for t least 30 years; and they feel that way because it is true. Saying that the mane reason the past was great was because of the white people is pretty lame. And not accurate, any way, because the econ. policies of the last 40 years would’ve hammered everyone even if demographics had not changed. Slashing taxes on rich people, de-regulating the markets, off-shoring etc. are all awful policies which would still have destroyed everything even if the borders had remained shut. Each decade since the 80’s has seen a dizzying rise in the number of super-rich, while the middle class thins and lesser skilled workers are told to dive into empty swimming pools.

    Your anger needs to be targeted at air-headed and devious elites (and wannabe elites), who crassly are indifferent to the standing of all demographic groups and regions which are not in the top 20%.

  79. @216
    The strategy revolves around pandering to non-whites, marginally increasing support. Supposedly this will also get white moderate Gary voters to return.

    The game is in turnout. Black turnout was down in '16. Could it go lower in '20?

    Maybe. If the campaign doesn't inflame blacks like it did with Kapernick, its possible an EconomyFirst strategy increases black take to 12% or even 15%.

    Also a risk that AZ goes Dem.

    There's a limit to boorishness in getting WWC votes, its maxed out. Only way to get more WWC is results. Maybe shit on econ orthodoxy and double min wage to 15/hr.

    Winning again relies on unlikeable crazy Dem pushing moderate Boomer/X back into GOP camp, or into centrist splinter party.

    There’s a limit to boorishness in getting WWC votes, its maxed out. Only way to get more WWC is results. Maybe shit on econ orthodoxy and double min wage to 15/hr.

    The autistic screeching that “Trump’s personality” did the deal is something that the over-analyzers and the gruffly uncouth Boomer/early X-er cohort are more likely to believe. Occam’s razor tells me that voters wanted no more war, no more unregulated immigration, and no more “free trade”. One of Bill Clinton’s advisors said, after the election, that Trump’s stance on trade pushed him over the line in the Rust-belt, and allowed for the breaching of the Northern blue wall. Perhaps it’s also Sun-Belters who misread the election, who legit think that America is turning into Mexico, blissfully ignorant that in the Upper Midwest, most immigrants are legal arrivals from Asia/Africa/India/The Middle East (are there are any expansive “barrios” in the Upper Midwest?). It’s all the more baffling to hear Northern GOP die-hards bitch about “illegal” immigration, when it’s virtually a non-issue in much of the Midwest (aside from some ag-centered small towns inundated by cheap labor, I suppose, but in the suburbs, it’s not something that you notice or care about).

    You’re right, I do wish that we’d finally get this non-sense out of our system that people vote based on who they’d want to party with.

  80. @Mr. Rational

    ‘Making America White Again’ would mean expelling people who are already US citizens, which will never happen, not the least of which because the country they are being expelled to would have to give them new citizenship even if they never lived there.
     
    John McCain was born in Panama, yet when he was brought to the United States he was not processed as an alien.  He inherited US citizenship from his parents.

    ‘How would those logisitics work?
     
    All first-generation immigrants and illegals still hold foreign citizenship.  All of their children inherit citizenship in the countries of their parents.  Mexico claims all of its offspring for I don't know how many generations, so we should use the same standard.  As for logistics, putting them 20 miles off their native coast in a rubber boat and telling them which way to row would be sufficient.

    All first-generation immigrants and illegals still hold foreign citizenship. All of their children inherit citizenship in the countries of their parents.

    OK; in theory, this is not bad.

    But you do realize that in practice, you will have to get ALL those countries (all 150+ of them) to give citizenship all these new people, the 2nd gen of whom have never actually lived in the country that you want them to be given citizenship in.

    How, exactly, will you get all those countries to agree to that?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    you do realize that in practice, you will have to get ALL those countries (all 150+ of them) to give citizenship all these new people, the 2nd gen of whom have never actually lived in the country that you want them to be given citizenship in.
     
    It's exactly the situation they'd have been in if those same children had been born domestically.  They are citizens of their parent's home countries, period.

    How, exactly, will you get all those countries to agree to that?
     
    They have no legitimate way to refuse, and if they try they really won't have any way to deal with them showing up 50 at a time rowing their way to shore in inflatable rubber boats.  The problem is not on the repatriation end; the problem is the will of the USA to enforce repatriation.
  81. @eah
    Whites thought he was going to make America white again.

    That's pretty much a ridiculous straw man -- reasonable people have reasonable expectations, and most Whites are reasonable -- it was clear Trump was not a White Nationalist (duh) -- that he seemed strongly opposed to war and illegal immigration, and wasn't HRC, was enough for many.

    I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but my expectation was that he would do, or try very hard to do, the following, all of which he talked up during his campaign: stop absurdities like 'catch and release' -- end birthright citizenship -- do away with the 'diversity lottery' -- dramatically curtail the refugee program -- use E-Verify to enforce laws against employing illegals -- stop instigating war -- stop job losses by re-negotiating trade -- try to stop the racially-charged talk of 'white privilege'.

    After the abusive asylum 'caravan' scam, I would add concluding a 'safe third country' agreement with Mexico.

    He has not done any of the above, nor has he really tried -- barely a couple of months after taking office he attacked Syria -- in the 2019 SOTU he said he wanted the highest levels of immigration ever (mostly non-whites of course) -- his servility to Jews and Israel is more than disgusting.

    I was always agnostic about a wall -- enforcing existing laws against employing illegals ought to be enough to get many to self-deport, and should dissuade others from coming.

  82. @Thomm

    All first-generation immigrants and illegals still hold foreign citizenship. All of their children inherit citizenship in the countries of their parents.
     
    OK; in theory, this is not bad.

    But you do realize that in practice, you will have to get ALL those countries (all 150+ of them) to give citizenship all these new people, the 2nd gen of whom have never actually lived in the country that you want them to be given citizenship in.

    How, exactly, will you get all those countries to agree to that?

    you do realize that in practice, you will have to get ALL those countries (all 150+ of them) to give citizenship all these new people, the 2nd gen of whom have never actually lived in the country that you want them to be given citizenship in.

    It’s exactly the situation they’d have been in if those same children had been born domestically.  They are citizens of their parent’s home countries, period.

    How, exactly, will you get all those countries to agree to that?

    They have no legitimate way to refuse, and if they try they really won’t have any way to deal with them showing up 50 at a time rowing their way to shore in inflatable rubber boats.  The problem is not on the repatriation end; the problem is the will of the USA to enforce repatriation.

    • Replies: @KenH
    Sheenie trolls like "Thomm" constantly lecture us that all these immigrants are invaluable to the American economy, so if that's really true their nations should welcome them back with open arms instead of fighting tooth and nail to refuse taking them back. If these immigrants are all geniuses wrapped in brown or yellow skin then their native lands would be foolish not to take them back.

    Another motive of some of these nations like Mexico and China is to colonize America with their nationals as well as industrial espionage in China's s case.

    But much could also be done to encourage them to return to their native lands such as taxing remittances at 50% (or more), rescinding suffrage rights (for legal immigrants), discrimination in favor of white Americans in employment and withdrawing all forms of government aid that they or their families may be on. Then we'll see how much they love "merica" and desire to stay here. "Thomm" will need to hit the road, too, unless he's already in a basement in Tel Aviv.

    However, putting this into practice would require a dictatorship since the woke and white hating Democrats and cucked Republicans would never touch any of these proposals, but extreme measures are needed.

  83. @YetAnotherAnon
    Is the USAF strained to the breaking point? I doubt the idea is a ground campaign, more of an infrastructure wrecking ball, although against stupidity the gods themselves battle in vain.

    Is the USAF

    Yes. Both men and material are worn out. I recall stories of static displays (the airplanes on a stick) being raided for parts, and that was years ago. Aviation accidents have increased alarmingly, while the hideously undiverse pilot corps is voting with its feet and decamping for the airlines. This will have long term deleterious effects.

  84. @Mr. Rational

    you do realize that in practice, you will have to get ALL those countries (all 150+ of them) to give citizenship all these new people, the 2nd gen of whom have never actually lived in the country that you want them to be given citizenship in.
     
    It's exactly the situation they'd have been in if those same children had been born domestically.  They are citizens of their parent's home countries, period.

    How, exactly, will you get all those countries to agree to that?
     
    They have no legitimate way to refuse, and if they try they really won't have any way to deal with them showing up 50 at a time rowing their way to shore in inflatable rubber boats.  The problem is not on the repatriation end; the problem is the will of the USA to enforce repatriation.

    Sheenie trolls like “Thomm” constantly lecture us that all these immigrants are invaluable to the American economy, so if that’s really true their nations should welcome them back with open arms instead of fighting tooth and nail to refuse taking them back. If these immigrants are all geniuses wrapped in brown or yellow skin then their native lands would be foolish not to take them back.

    Another motive of some of these nations like Mexico and China is to colonize America with their nationals as well as industrial espionage in China’s s case.

    But much could also be done to encourage them to return to their native lands such as taxing remittances at 50% (or more), rescinding suffrage rights (for legal immigrants), discrimination in favor of white Americans in employment and withdrawing all forms of government aid that they or their families may be on. Then we’ll see how much they love “merica” and desire to stay here. “Thomm” will need to hit the road, too, unless he’s already in a basement in Tel Aviv.

    However, putting this into practice would require a dictatorship since the woke and white hating Democrats and cucked Republicans would never touch any of these proposals, but extreme measures are needed.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    much could also be done to encourage them to return to their native lands such as taxing remittances at 50% (or more)
     
    Our experience with making the border less porous suggests that they would attempt to get their whole families here so the money doesn't have to be wired anywhere.  There would have to be major efforts at deportation as part and parcel of this program.
  85. @EldnahYm
    The U.S. doesn't need Middle East oil and dollar hegemony exists because of our wealth and prosperity(biggest export market) not the other way around.

    The idea that American prosperity is reliant upon Saudi Arabia is the same kind of reasoning that led people to suppose Iraq was a military threat to the U.S. Third world countries don't matter that much.

    In the U.S. case, where international trade as a percentage of GDP is quite small, where fossil fuels are abundant, where agricultural products are abundant, and where there are zero nearby military threats, even most first world countries don't matter much. This means the U.S. can have a totally irrational and destructive foreign policy and it makes little difference.

    Most economists appear to disagree with you. I’d personally prefer to live in Pat Buchanan’s ‘Fortress America’ and say screw the rest of the world, but that would cause a major cultural shift in the US, one that most Americans would have difficulty adapting to. We have been trained to live in an easy money, easy credit society where saving is discouraged and most live paycheck to paycheck. Trump’s attempt to bring manufacturing back to the US is a step in the right direction, but the telephone, video game, social media addicted youth of today could be too frail to work in a factory. Ron Paul’s platform couldn’t get a majority of republican primary votes, it’ll never get a majority of American votes. We’re on this globalist empire trek until the end, I think.

    I’m not saying you’re not right in theory, I’m just saying your theory will never be put into practice. It’s ‘Petrodollar or bust’ for the foreseeable future.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "the telephone, video game, social media addicted youth of today could be too frail to work in a factory"

    I had a summer job in an engineering works. The initiation ceremony for new shop-floor workers was certainly an eye-opener (grabbed and thrown onto the oily waste chute, which slid you out through the factory wall into a skip full of swarf and metal bits- your workmates meanwhile squirting you with oil). Not sure how that would go down today.
    , @EldnahYm
    I'm disagreeing with the premise that the U.S.' easy money, easy credit society is dependent upon oil from the Middle East. People make the mistake that because the rest of the world trades with the U.S., that the U.S. is reliant upon that trade. It's the other way around. If we say screw the rest of the world, it will hurt the rest of the world a great deal more than us.
  86. anon[346] • Disclaimer says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    Want is simply not a real warrant. I am not a "peace advocate".


    There is only one real question(s), the rationale for war. There are plenty of reasons to mistrust Iran - boat loads. And there are plenty of reasons why they should be checked.

    But thus far until demonstrated otherwise, they are not a threat to the US or her allies. There is no indication that Iran launched an attack against Japan. But I am certainly willing to hear the case to assess whether one exists.

    This one is more applicable to US than it is to Iran . US will beat Iran both by magnitude and number of breaches of the trusts that it supposedly offers other countries

    There are plenty of reasons to mistrust ((())))) – boat loads. And there are plenty of reasons why they should be checked.”

  87. anon[346] • Disclaimer says:
    @unit472
    With the US no longer dependent on Arab oil we need to rethink out geo-political posture in the MENA region. Allying with Saudi Arabia and its satellite sheikdoms no longer makes sense. Unfortunately we have no way to restore the US/Persian alliance that secured the region under the Shah.

    Since Iran will always be the dominant regional power we need to reach an accommodation with Iran but that can't happen as long as Iran is an Islamic dictatorship virulently hostile to Israel. I think Trump understands this and for that reason his 'maximum pressure' on the Ayatollahs makes sense. If the we can effect regime change in Iran both Iran and the USA win a huge strategic victory.

    Master doesn’t want the servant to reach an accommodation . Master Israel uses 12 th century serf USA to get certain things done .Once those certain things are done, new demands are created and orders are placed . Zionist – licking -America is doomed until it throws out the scum Israeli nation .

    Have you ever seen 2 gladiators coming to terms and calling it a day? No. Bith are being played by the master who loves the spectacles of 2 killing each other while he enjoys the warmth of the white prostitues and wine.

    Iran doesn’t want to play but has been forced to enter the arena as unwilling contestants . But US has been told to keep on throwing punches so the promo film of violence starts rolling .

  88. @KenH
    Sheenie trolls like "Thomm" constantly lecture us that all these immigrants are invaluable to the American economy, so if that's really true their nations should welcome them back with open arms instead of fighting tooth and nail to refuse taking them back. If these immigrants are all geniuses wrapped in brown or yellow skin then their native lands would be foolish not to take them back.

    Another motive of some of these nations like Mexico and China is to colonize America with their nationals as well as industrial espionage in China's s case.

    But much could also be done to encourage them to return to their native lands such as taxing remittances at 50% (or more), rescinding suffrage rights (for legal immigrants), discrimination in favor of white Americans in employment and withdrawing all forms of government aid that they or their families may be on. Then we'll see how much they love "merica" and desire to stay here. "Thomm" will need to hit the road, too, unless he's already in a basement in Tel Aviv.

    However, putting this into practice would require a dictatorship since the woke and white hating Democrats and cucked Republicans would never touch any of these proposals, but extreme measures are needed.

    much could also be done to encourage them to return to their native lands such as taxing remittances at 50% (or more)

    Our experience with making the border less porous suggests that they would attempt to get their whole families here so the money doesn’t have to be wired anywhere.  There would have to be major efforts at deportation as part and parcel of this program.

  89. @eah
    Trump is such a fucking idiot -- he: bleats on and on about low black unemployment even though they did not and will not vote for him; kisses Jew ass even though they did not and will not vote for him; bellows about "fake news" etc like it's 2016 again -- except it's not -- it's 2019 and he's been President since Jan 2017 -- so he has a track record as President to run on -- this is what voters will pay attention to now -- including and especially those who voted for him in 2016 -- he sure as hell has not won over and will not win over any of the HRC voters -- if there are intelligent people working for Trump, there is no sign of it.
    • Replies: @eah
    And no one should forget that Trump pardoned that Jew who employed all those illegals in Iowa.

    https://twitter.com/MatthewParrott/status/1141039116471197696
    , @216
    Sentencing reform was actually passed after the election.

    Trump wasted political capital attacking sportsballers, while not explicitly calling for a boycott, because he wanted donorbucks from the owners. He additionally did nothing visible about the Flint crisis, which conspiracy-minded blacks have been crazy about.
  90. @eah

    And no one should forget that Trump pardoned that Jew who employed all those illegals in Iowa.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational, 216
    • Replies: @eah
    https://twitter.com/cozycondor/status/1141438992669380608
  91. @Rich
    Most economists appear to disagree with you. I'd personally prefer to live in Pat Buchanan's 'Fortress America' and say screw the rest of the world, but that would cause a major cultural shift in the US, one that most Americans would have difficulty adapting to. We have been trained to live in an easy money, easy credit society where saving is discouraged and most live paycheck to paycheck. Trump's attempt to bring manufacturing back to the US is a step in the right direction, but the telephone, video game, social media addicted youth of today could be too frail to work in a factory. Ron Paul's platform couldn't get a majority of republican primary votes, it'll never get a majority of American votes. We're on this globalist empire trek until the end, I think.

    I'm not saying you're not right in theory, I'm just saying your theory will never be put into practice. It's 'Petrodollar or bust' for the foreseeable future.

    “the telephone, video game, social media addicted youth of today could be too frail to work in a factory”

    I had a summer job in an engineering works. The initiation ceremony for new shop-floor workers was certainly an eye-opener (grabbed and thrown onto the oily waste chute, which slid you out through the factory wall into a skip full of swarf and metal bits- your workmates meanwhile squirting you with oil). Not sure how that would go down today.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Not well; that could easily result in many puncture wounds with consequent infections.  I personally would go straight to the police and file charges of assault and battery, then retain an attorney for a civil suit.
  92. @YetAnotherAnon
    "the telephone, video game, social media addicted youth of today could be too frail to work in a factory"

    I had a summer job in an engineering works. The initiation ceremony for new shop-floor workers was certainly an eye-opener (grabbed and thrown onto the oily waste chute, which slid you out through the factory wall into a skip full of swarf and metal bits- your workmates meanwhile squirting you with oil). Not sure how that would go down today.

    Not well; that could easily result in many puncture wounds with consequent infections.  I personally would go straight to the police and file charges of assault and battery, then retain an attorney for a civil suit.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    It DID result in puncture wounds - I was picking swarf out of my knees and backside for a day or two. But I was young and fit - and you are then initiated and can spray oil at the next newbie sliding into the skip.

    I think the UK police would have told you to stop wasting their time, and rightly so.

    Would you go to the police if given "bumps" by your friends on your birthday, or don't they have that in the States?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_customs_and_celebrations#Punches.2C_bumps.2C_and_other_birthday_torments

  93. @Mr. Rational
    Not well; that could easily result in many puncture wounds with consequent infections.  I personally would go straight to the police and file charges of assault and battery, then retain an attorney for a civil suit.

    It DID result in puncture wounds – I was picking swarf out of my knees and backside for a day or two. But I was young and fit – and you are then initiated and can spray oil at the next newbie sliding into the skip.

    I think the UK police would have told you to stop wasting their time, and rightly so.

    Would you go to the police if given “bumps” by your friends on your birthday, or don’t they have that in the States?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_customs_and_celebrations#Punches.2C_bumps.2C_and_other_birthday_torments

    • Replies: @Rich
    Back in my day we took punches to the arm on our birthdays, and hazing on jobs and sports teams could get a little rough, but it was usually in good fun and it brought about a kind of comradeship among teammates and co-workers. Nowadays, there would be lawsuits and firings, on a sports team the coaches would be fired, sensitivity training and psych testing would be conducted and tearful parents would call for justice under the watchful eye of their attorney.
  94. @Sid
    Biden is a stooge on most everything, but as VP he was one of the more firmly anti-interventionist figures in the Obama White House.

    Trump's comparatively anti-interventionist stances gave him a leg over Hillary, and if we get bogged down in the quarrel between the Bedouins and the Sassanids under Trump, well, Biden will have that advantage without having to do anything.

    : Biden? You mean, like, Biden Biden, Obama’s veep? He ran the entire Maidan saga in Ukraine, boasted about it, and his clan got rich as Ukraine went down the drain. But the Bush cronies got rich off Iraq as well so hey, why not.

  95. Anybody thinking of primarying the Donald or would it be considered impolite?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It'd be embarrassingly ineffective for whoever tried it.
  96. @eah
    And no one should forget that Trump pardoned that Jew who employed all those illegals in Iowa.

    https://twitter.com/MatthewParrott/status/1141039116471197696
  97. Any available independent issue preference?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yeah, mostly economy and healthcare. Immigration is fifth overall.
  98. @216

    The United States is the world’s largest oil producer, but somehow you think environmentalists hold its energy industry hostage. Not the case.
     
    Does the term ANWR ring a bell?

    Every pipeline under construction has lawsuits and greens obstructing it.

    The rise of the Greens as a guarantor of our perpetual involvement in the Middle East… depressing, very depressing.
     
    Otoh, Greens in Europe are basically forced to advocate leniency on Russia (gas), lest they otherwise have to use nuclear as an energy source.

    That first response wasn’t from me.

    There is a lot of risibility in the world of political alignments, but the “greens” being against nuclear energy is probably the most risible of all. How can anyone take them seriously?

    • Replies: @216
    Sorry, was lazy and combined replies.

    Origin of Green Parties was 1980s "nuclear freeze" movement, anti-nuclear weapons and by descent nuclear power.

    The Greens in Germany have been out of government since 2005, so in a sense its "their turn". They also provide a "secular morality" that has been nominally endorsed by the actual clergy.
    , @Mr. Rational

    the “greens” being against nuclear energy is probably the most risible of all.
     
    Greens have always been a front for fossil fuel interests.  The Sierra Club's original motto was "Atoms Not Dams".  That lasted until David Brower started Friends of the Earth to compete with them.

    Brower was bankrolled by ARCO executive Robert O. Anderson.  He knew what he was buying.

  99. 216 says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    That first response wasn't from me.

    There is a lot of risibility in the world of political alignments, but the "greens" being against nuclear energy is probably the most risible of all. How can anyone take them seriously?

    Sorry, was lazy and combined replies.

    Origin of Green Parties was 1980s “nuclear freeze” movement, anti-nuclear weapons and by descent nuclear power.

    The Greens in Germany have been out of government since 2005, so in a sense its “their turn”. They also provide a “secular morality” that has been nominally endorsed by the actual clergy.

  100. @eah

    Sentencing reform was actually passed after the election.

    Trump wasted political capital attacking sportsballers, while not explicitly calling for a boycott, because he wanted donorbucks from the owners. He additionally did nothing visible about the Flint crisis, which conspiracy-minded blacks have been crazy about.

  101. @Audacious Epigone
    That first response wasn't from me.

    There is a lot of risibility in the world of political alignments, but the "greens" being against nuclear energy is probably the most risible of all. How can anyone take them seriously?

    the “greens” being against nuclear energy is probably the most risible of all.

    Greens have always been a front for fossil fuel interests.  The Sierra Club’s original motto was “Atoms Not Dams”.  That lasted until David Brower started Friends of the Earth to compete with them.

    Brower was bankrolled by ARCO executive Robert O. Anderson.  He knew what he was buying.

  102. Hopefully Trump realizes how insanely unpopular a war with Iran would be.

    I agree with many people upstream–the current policies favoring the rich are a big reason everyone is so unhappy (and Bernie has been so successful on the left). A ‘Tranders’-type candidate who ignored identity politics, limited immigration, and raised taxes on the rich to expand the safety net would probably do pretty well, though breaking through the duopoly is almost impossible. You have to at least give Tucker Carlson credit for realizing Big Business is not America’s friend.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  103. @eah
    Trump is such a fucking idiot -- he: bleats on and on about low black unemployment even though they did not and will not vote for him; kisses Jew ass even though they did not and will not vote for him; bellows about "fake news" etc like it's 2016 again -- except it's not -- it's 2019 and he's been President since Jan 2017 -- so he has a track record as President to run on -- this is what voters will pay attention to now -- including and especially those who voted for him in 2016 -- he sure as hell has not won over and will not win over any of the HRC voters -- if there are intelligent people working for Trump, there is no sign of it.

    The only contingent he has made some inroads with are former Never Trump Republicans. Small, electorally insignificant. If he wins reelection it will be on account of the Dem nominee scaring white boomers with “socialism” so much that they vote for Trump as the safe choice.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    It was alienation of yuppie Republicans that helped Trump get along with moderates, in the first place.
  104. @Mr. Rational

    The rise of the Greens as a guarantor of our perpetual involvement in the Middle East…
     
    Greens have always been a front for the fossil fuel industry.  "Friends of the Earth" was bankrolled by ARCO executive Robert O. Anderson, Jerry Brown's family made their money in oil dealings with the Indonesian military junta, and "Green New Deal" fraudster Mark Z. Jacobson enjoys a chair endowed by oil baron Jay Precourt.

    As @216 notes, Greens are really only against one thing:  nuclear power.  That also happens to be the one thing that can replace coal, oil and gas.  As France has tried to be more "renewable", its fossil fuel consumption and emissions have been going UP.  You'll notice that, with the fate of the planet supposedly in the balance, they are not screaming to reverse course.

    *mind blown*

  105. @Thomm

    Whites thought he was going to make America white again.
     
    No one except 70-IQ WN wiggers actually thought that.

    We thought that he would halt illegal immigration and curb H1-B abuses, but that is it.

    'Making America White Again' would mean expelling people who are already US citizens, which will never happen, not the least of which because the country they are being expelled to would have to give them new citizenship even if they never lived there. How would those logisitics work? These are questions too lofty for 70-IQ wiggers.

    Remember what Heartiste used to say :

    99% of White Trashionalism is nothing more than the bottom decile of white men getting mad that the bottom decile of white women no longer are forced to be with them.

    Schoolmarm disapprove of the portmanteau directed at whites of low social status. Please refrain good sir, thanks.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    Some are born of parents from very high social status.

    It is not a 'class' thing by any means. Rather, there is a distinct need for greater peer-reviewed study regarding the extremely high variance found within whites.

    We all like to gloat about how high the top is, and how high even the median is. But the bottom is unusually low, and the distribution is bi-modal.

    The lowest-quality men become White Nationalists (hence the aforementioned portmanteau). The lowest quality women become the fat bluehaired feminists. All could have had upper-class parents, but inherited none of their favorable attributes.
  106. @Ma Laoshi
    Anybody thinking of primarying the Donald or would it be considered impolite?

    It’d be embarrassingly ineffective for whoever tried it.

  107. @Oblivionrecurs
    Any available independent issue preference?

    Yeah, mostly economy and healthcare. Immigration is fifth overall.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Well yeah, it's hard to get that worked up over "immigrants" after elites systematically demolished what was once a major industrial economy w/an impressive middle class. Plow resources into the military, and inflating corporate profits and stock market bubbles, while the country literally crumbles.

    There may be a growing sense, also, that immigrants are merely picking at America's corpse, which just hasn't begun to stink too much, not yet anyway. Come a major political or economic crisis, the stench will waft along until we finally get reforms that everyone born since the mid-70's knows we need. That's happened in the 1930's, after all, a crisis that proved a catalyst for major reforms that worked pretty well for the next 5 decades (by 1980, yuppie Silents and Boomers had lost all respect for the leaders of the New Deal era, so voila, America no longer needed manufacturing, it no longer needed unions, and it no longer needed closed borders).

  108. @Anon000
    https://twitter.com/DarrenJBeattie/status/1140265866749186048?s=20

    Yeah, and I heard the Iranians were SMIRKING, too.

  109. @Audacious Epigone
    Schoolmarm disapprove of the portmanteau directed at whites of low social status. Please refrain good sir, thanks.

    Some are born of parents from very high social status.

    It is not a ‘class’ thing by any means. Rather, there is a distinct need for greater peer-reviewed study regarding the extremely high variance found within whites.

    We all like to gloat about how high the top is, and how high even the median is. But the bottom is unusually low, and the distribution is bi-modal.

    The lowest-quality men become White Nationalists (hence the aforementioned portmanteau). The lowest quality women become the fat bluehaired feminists. All could have had upper-class parents, but inherited none of their favorable attributes.

  110. @YetAnotherAnon
    It DID result in puncture wounds - I was picking swarf out of my knees and backside for a day or two. But I was young and fit - and you are then initiated and can spray oil at the next newbie sliding into the skip.

    I think the UK police would have told you to stop wasting their time, and rightly so.

    Would you go to the police if given "bumps" by your friends on your birthday, or don't they have that in the States?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_customs_and_celebrations#Punches.2C_bumps.2C_and_other_birthday_torments

    Back in my day we took punches to the arm on our birthdays, and hazing on jobs and sports teams could get a little rough, but it was usually in good fun and it brought about a kind of comradeship among teammates and co-workers. Nowadays, there would be lawsuits and firings, on a sports team the coaches would be fired, sensitivity training and psych testing would be conducted and tearful parents would call for justice under the watchful eye of their attorney.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Rich, insanely abusive hazing is something that got markedly worse among Boomers in the 70's, and X-ers took it to even greater heights of indignity and cruelty in the 80's and 90's. N-Gram, pop culture etc. don't feature much aggressive hazing when you look at material from the 1930's-1960's (ya know, when people looked out for each other and mostly didn't act like psycho super competitive assholes). Mike Ditka was quoted in a news story about some really over the top hazing that happened on the Saints in the 90's; he said that he was furious that some Neanderthals on his team broke the eye socket and/or jaw of a rookie, when they "playfully" used improvised weapons to take shots at him while he was laying down in a training camp bunk.

    It's not "PC" or overly sensitive to tell people that engaging in harsh violence and humiliation against a newcomer is not acceptable. Being an asshole is not good in the long run, which we understood in the New Deal era.
  111. @Audacious Epigone
    Yeah, mostly economy and healthcare. Immigration is fifth overall.

    Well yeah, it’s hard to get that worked up over “immigrants” after elites systematically demolished what was once a major industrial economy w/an impressive middle class. Plow resources into the military, and inflating corporate profits and stock market bubbles, while the country literally crumbles.

    There may be a growing sense, also, that immigrants are merely picking at America’s corpse, which just hasn’t begun to stink too much, not yet anyway. Come a major political or economic crisis, the stench will waft along until we finally get reforms that everyone born since the mid-70’s knows we need. That’s happened in the 1930’s, after all, a crisis that proved a catalyst for major reforms that worked pretty well for the next 5 decades (by 1980, yuppie Silents and Boomers had lost all respect for the leaders of the New Deal era, so voila, America no longer needed manufacturing, it no longer needed unions, and it no longer needed closed borders).

  112. @Rich
    Back in my day we took punches to the arm on our birthdays, and hazing on jobs and sports teams could get a little rough, but it was usually in good fun and it brought about a kind of comradeship among teammates and co-workers. Nowadays, there would be lawsuits and firings, on a sports team the coaches would be fired, sensitivity training and psych testing would be conducted and tearful parents would call for justice under the watchful eye of their attorney.

    Rich, insanely abusive hazing is something that got markedly worse among Boomers in the 70’s, and X-ers took it to even greater heights of indignity and cruelty in the 80’s and 90’s. N-Gram, pop culture etc. don’t feature much aggressive hazing when you look at material from the 1930’s-1960’s (ya know, when people looked out for each other and mostly didn’t act like psycho super competitive assholes). Mike Ditka was quoted in a news story about some really over the top hazing that happened on the Saints in the 90’s; he said that he was furious that some Neanderthals on his team broke the eye socket and/or jaw of a rookie, when they “playfully” used improvised weapons to take shots at him while he was laying down in a training camp bunk.

    It’s not “PC” or overly sensitive to tell people that engaging in harsh violence and humiliation against a newcomer is not acceptable. Being an asshole is not good in the long run, which we understood in the New Deal era.

    • Replies: @Rich
    I agree that "harsh violence" is bad. A little old fashioned hazing isn't. I think the line is pretty clear, but I suppose if there's a sadist or two in the group, and not enough normal people to keep it from going over the top, it can go too far. I just think we've so feminized society now, that any type of hazing, or roughhousing, is forbidden. For instance, when I was a kid teachers would let us have a fight now and then, we used to play a game called "kill the guy with the ball" at recess and you had to learn to stand for yourself. Now, young people are frail and afraid of conflict and are so used to running to the teacher, they do the same thing at work. We've gone way too far to the effeminate side.
  113. @Audacious Epigone
    The only contingent he has made some inroads with are former Never Trump Republicans. Small, electorally insignificant. If he wins reelection it will be on account of the Dem nominee scaring white boomers with "socialism" so much that they vote for Trump as the safe choice.

    It was alienation of yuppie Republicans that helped Trump get along with moderates, in the first place.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  114. @Feryl
    Rich, insanely abusive hazing is something that got markedly worse among Boomers in the 70's, and X-ers took it to even greater heights of indignity and cruelty in the 80's and 90's. N-Gram, pop culture etc. don't feature much aggressive hazing when you look at material from the 1930's-1960's (ya know, when people looked out for each other and mostly didn't act like psycho super competitive assholes). Mike Ditka was quoted in a news story about some really over the top hazing that happened on the Saints in the 90's; he said that he was furious that some Neanderthals on his team broke the eye socket and/or jaw of a rookie, when they "playfully" used improvised weapons to take shots at him while he was laying down in a training camp bunk.

    It's not "PC" or overly sensitive to tell people that engaging in harsh violence and humiliation against a newcomer is not acceptable. Being an asshole is not good in the long run, which we understood in the New Deal era.

    I agree that “harsh violence” is bad. A little old fashioned hazing isn’t. I think the line is pretty clear, but I suppose if there’s a sadist or two in the group, and not enough normal people to keep it from going over the top, it can go too far. I just think we’ve so feminized society now, that any type of hazing, or roughhousing, is forbidden. For instance, when I was a kid teachers would let us have a fight now and then, we used to play a game called “kill the guy with the ball” at recess and you had to learn to stand for yourself. Now, young people are frail and afraid of conflict and are so used to running to the teacher, they do the same thing at work. We’ve gone way too far to the effeminate side.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'I agree that “harsh violence” is bad. A little old fashioned hazing isn’t. I think the line is pretty clear, but I suppose if there’s a sadist or two in the group, and not enough normal people to keep it from going over the top, it can go too far. I just think we’ve so feminized society now, that any type of hazing, or roughhousing, is forbidden. For instance, when I was a kid teachers would let us have a fight now and then, we used to play a game called “kill the guy with the ball” at recess and you had to learn to stand for yourself. Now, young people are frail and afraid of conflict and are so used to running to the teacher, they do the same thing at work. We’ve gone way too far to the effeminate side.'

    My own focus is on how kids aren't allowed to fight with each other any more. Man, when I was a kid, we would wale on each other all day. Girls were certainly out of bounds, but otherwise...

    The point is that we worked out our game plan. Are you king of the hill, a follower, the joker? You come up with it because you have to -- and it all happens while the consequences are negligible.

    After all, eight year olds can punch each other to their heart's content. The worst that happens is a split lip or a bloody nose. When adult men hit each other, blood sprays against the wall.

    It's not a joke. So you get all that worked out while you're eight.

    ...or that's how it used to work. Now, it doesn't work.
  115. If the drone was over Iranian airspace, I think it was a brilliant move to shoot it down. Our government seems to think we can act like bullies in the area and everyone will go along, sometimes you have to challenge the bully to get him to back off a bit.

    Iran may simply be giving the message; yeah, you might be able to attack us, but we can also do some damage and we will make you bleed – is it worth it?

    And you could have it all
    My empire of dirt
    I will let you down
    I will make you hurt

    Peace.

  116. @Abelard Lindsey
    You're preaching to the choir. I don't there is a single individual who reads unz.com who is in favor of war against Iran. Additionally, I think we are all aware that these tanker attacks are a set-up. Trump would be unbelievably stupid to go to war with Iran.

    ‘…Trump would be unbelievably stupid to go to war with Iran.’

    Trump may not have a choice. Aside from whatever he promised Sheldon Adelson, who knows what dirt the Zionists have collected on him?

    Trump made his career as a rather sleazy entrepreneur in New York City. There are a whole lot of Jews in business in New York City. I’d be mildly surprised if the Zionists haven’t managed to collect some juicy tidbits.

    …or do you think Trump is doing all this because he wants to? Abrogating our agreement with Iran, appointing Bolton and Pompeo, driving Iran into a corner?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    If any seriously debilitating dirt was out there, it would've already been dug up. I suspect it has more to do with Trump's future prospects than with what they can do to him based on what's happened in the past.
  117. @Colin Wright
    '...Trump would be unbelievably stupid to go to war with Iran.'

    Trump may not have a choice. Aside from whatever he promised Sheldon Adelson, who knows what dirt the Zionists have collected on him?

    Trump made his career as a rather sleazy entrepreneur in New York City. There are a whole lot of Jews in business in New York City. I'd be mildly surprised if the Zionists haven't managed to collect some juicy tidbits.

    ...or do you think Trump is doing all this because he wants to? Abrogating our agreement with Iran, appointing Bolton and Pompeo, driving Iran into a corner?

    If any seriously debilitating dirt was out there, it would’ve already been dug up. I suspect it has more to do with Trump’s future prospects than with what they can do to him based on what’s happened in the past.

  118. @Rich
    Most economists appear to disagree with you. I'd personally prefer to live in Pat Buchanan's 'Fortress America' and say screw the rest of the world, but that would cause a major cultural shift in the US, one that most Americans would have difficulty adapting to. We have been trained to live in an easy money, easy credit society where saving is discouraged and most live paycheck to paycheck. Trump's attempt to bring manufacturing back to the US is a step in the right direction, but the telephone, video game, social media addicted youth of today could be too frail to work in a factory. Ron Paul's platform couldn't get a majority of republican primary votes, it'll never get a majority of American votes. We're on this globalist empire trek until the end, I think.

    I'm not saying you're not right in theory, I'm just saying your theory will never be put into practice. It's 'Petrodollar or bust' for the foreseeable future.

    I’m disagreeing with the premise that the U.S.’ easy money, easy credit society is dependent upon oil from the Middle East. People make the mistake that because the rest of the world trades with the U.S., that the U.S. is reliant upon that trade. It’s the other way around. If we say screw the rest of the world, it will hurt the rest of the world a great deal more than us.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'I’m disagreeing with the premise that the U.S.’ easy money, easy credit society is dependent upon oil from the Middle East. People make the mistake that because the rest of the world trades with the U.S., that the U.S. is reliant upon that trade. It’s the other way around. If we say screw the rest of the world, it will hurt the rest of the world a great deal more than us.'

    Offhand, I suspect that remark is about fifty years out of date.

    We had our moment in the sun. That doesn't mean the end times are upon us -- but some realism would help.
  119. @EldnahYm
    I'm disagreeing with the premise that the U.S.' easy money, easy credit society is dependent upon oil from the Middle East. People make the mistake that because the rest of the world trades with the U.S., that the U.S. is reliant upon that trade. It's the other way around. If we say screw the rest of the world, it will hurt the rest of the world a great deal more than us.

    ‘I’m disagreeing with the premise that the U.S.’ easy money, easy credit society is dependent upon oil from the Middle East. People make the mistake that because the rest of the world trades with the U.S., that the U.S. is reliant upon that trade. It’s the other way around. If we say screw the rest of the world, it will hurt the rest of the world a great deal more than us.’

    Offhand, I suspect that remark is about fifty years out of date.

    We had our moment in the sun. That doesn’t mean the end times are upon us — but some realism would help.

  120. @Rich
    I agree that "harsh violence" is bad. A little old fashioned hazing isn't. I think the line is pretty clear, but I suppose if there's a sadist or two in the group, and not enough normal people to keep it from going over the top, it can go too far. I just think we've so feminized society now, that any type of hazing, or roughhousing, is forbidden. For instance, when I was a kid teachers would let us have a fight now and then, we used to play a game called "kill the guy with the ball" at recess and you had to learn to stand for yourself. Now, young people are frail and afraid of conflict and are so used to running to the teacher, they do the same thing at work. We've gone way too far to the effeminate side.

    ‘I agree that “harsh violence” is bad. A little old fashioned hazing isn’t. I think the line is pretty clear, but I suppose if there’s a sadist or two in the group, and not enough normal people to keep it from going over the top, it can go too far. I just think we’ve so feminized society now, that any type of hazing, or roughhousing, is forbidden. For instance, when I was a kid teachers would let us have a fight now and then, we used to play a game called “kill the guy with the ball” at recess and you had to learn to stand for yourself. Now, young people are frail and afraid of conflict and are so used to running to the teacher, they do the same thing at work. We’ve gone way too far to the effeminate side.’

    My own focus is on how kids aren’t allowed to fight with each other any more. Man, when I was a kid, we would wale on each other all day. Girls were certainly out of bounds, but otherwise…

    The point is that we worked out our game plan. Are you king of the hill, a follower, the joker? You come up with it because you have to — and it all happens while the consequences are negligible.

    After all, eight year olds can punch each other to their heart’s content. The worst that happens is a split lip or a bloody nose. When adult men hit each other, blood sprays against the wall.

    It’s not a joke. So you get all that worked out while you’re eight.

    …or that’s how it used to work. Now, it doesn’t work.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS