RSS
Bernie Sanders, former track athlete, could not quite clear his low bar. On the eve of Super Tuesday we wrote:
Sanders’ low bar is winning California, Colorado, Maine [declared to Biden today], Utah, and Vermont. If he somehow manages to lose any of these states, it will signal severe problems for the campaign and indicate he may be unlikely even to win a plurality of delegates to the convention.
Unlikely indeed. Elizabeth Warren is allegedly in talks with Sanders about how to combine their progressive energies to take on the establishment’s centrism. Sounds like a face-saving ploy to me. With Bloomberg out, Warren staying in to siphon votes from Sanders in a three-way race will be the final nail is Sanders’ campaign coffin. Would Biden promise Warren a middling cabinet position like Education for that? Probably.
So the streak continues. In 2008, again in 2016, and now in 2020, the Democrat presidential nominee will be the one who earned the most black votes, not the one who won the most white votes or the most votes of the nation’s newest Americans. This is an impressive feat of relative unity by black voters, who comprise about 25% of the Democrat electorate compared to white voters who comprise a little over 50% of it.
It feels like a long time ago now, but recall that in the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama among whites by 56% to 44% and beat him among Hispanics by 64% to 36%. Obama won the nomination by trouncing Clinton among blacks, however, winning them 85% to 15%.
Clinton, deliberately or subconsciously, learned from 2008. In 2016, she crushed Bernie Sanders by 78%-22% among blacks, while also maintaining a strong advantage among Hispanics, 65% to 35%. Sanders’ narrow edge among whites, 51% to 49%, wasn’t close to enough.
In 2020, Sanders deliberately reached out to Hispanic voters, both in voter registration assistance and by heavily canvassing in heavily Hispanic areas. The Hispanic results have thus far been good. The white results are serviceable, too, though Biden has a slight edge. Blacks, on the other hand–well, it kind of feels like 2008 all over again, doesn’t it?
The following graph shows an estimate of how whites, blacks, and Hispanics have voted in a two-way race between Sanders and Biden. As of this posting, most but not all results are in from some of the Tuesday states, so we’ve extrapolated from the percentages thus far reported. In states where sample sizes for blacks or Hispanics have been too small to report, they are excluded rather than algebraically arrived at. There were no exit polls conducted in Arkansas and Utah:
If the US does not take on a large number of African migrants in the coming years, the black electorate’s deciding influence over the party’s nominee will presumably wane at some point. This is a major reason I expect a sustained campaign by the neo-liberal establishment (NLE) for the US to welcome African migrants to commence in the coming decade. There is no better way for the NLE to simultaneously forever neuter both progressives and dissidents on the right than by welcoming tens of millions of young sub-Saharan African refugees to America.
Is there a way for progressives to combat this? Not without revolting against wokeness. The NLE has progressives in a wokehold they cannot wriggle free from. If the NLE doesn’t like a candidate, he and his supporters are accused of being -ists. He’s asked do-you-still-beat-your-wife-style accusatory “questions” in party debates in front of tens of millions of people. The corporate media wonder why he doesn’t think an X can be president.
Did we mention Russia? Remember, we demanded–and received–compliance on the Russia Hoax. And we’re not afraid to weaponize it again against progressive pests now.
Joe Biden is exploiting this fatal progressive vulnerability:
NEW: @JoeBiden responds to @berniesanders saying the “establishment” is trying to defeat him.
“The establishment are all those hardworking, middle class people, those African Americans…they are the establishment!” @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/43Q2Nci5sS
— Bo Erickson CBS (@BoKnowsNews) March 4, 2020
And Sanders is illustrating the hopelessness of the progressive position. Blaming “the establishment” in the Democrat party effectively means blaming blacks. Progressives can’t do that, so they impotently yell at a power structure unthreatened by them.
If someone the NLE likes blunders, he’ll be protected. When Biden looked suboptimal, they were ready to dispatch him. Now that he’s the NLE champion, the corporate media will not say anything else about his history of palling around with segregationists, etc. Conservative Inc will exclaim Dems are the real racists, no one will care, and Biden will carry on. The establishment protects Ralph Northam, after all–but has the knives out for Sanders.
Conservative Inc does the same thing on the right. It’s more difficult, however, because while virtually no one on the progressive left protests the chains of political correctness the NLE has them shackled in, patriots on the right do, and the patriot ranks are growing. This is why, if a real change to the ruling structure occurs, it will necessarily come from the right.
The NLE crushes progressives under their boot. Conservative Inc is increasingly finding that, unable to submit patriots outright, their best bet is to absorb them. Donald Trump is the most salient example. In 2016, Conservative Inc hated him. Four years later, they own his administration. Those who come after Trump will learn from his failings.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Immigrant tend to move into the neighborhoods occupied by previous immigrants. Nothing and I mean nothing will get Hispanics to vote republican faster than African immigrants moving into Hispanic neighborhoods.
That said, Runzie Baby has proven that it is Hispanics that push blacks out, block by block, rather than the other way around. This has not turned the Bay Area or LA less blue (quite the opposite in fact).Replies: @indocon
For example, immigrants from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh may dislike the antisocial behavior of Blacks, but they still cling to the Democrat party, and will vote Left despite having benefited from capitalism, low taxes & the high trust created by a majority White country.
So it suggests their resentment of Whites may be linked to Anti-Colonial thinking or embarrassment about the corrupt, squalid status of South Asia. It's also likely they are buying into generic Anti-White narratives spewed by media & schools. Lastly, there may simply be socio-sexual hierarchy resentments at play. Especially in the case of eg. Pramila Jayapal & Fareed Zakaria.
What is “NLE”?
Some observations in no particular order
• I’ve gotta hand it to you AE. I still can’t believe Biden will likely be the nominee. I am impressed with the DNC’s military precision in getting behind Biden (Pete/Amy drop out, Beto endorsement, etc.) My view had always been it will be Sanders or go contested.
• I didn’t see the media getting behind Biden so quickly. Sure they don’t like Sanders but they haven’t been much pro-Biden (they dismissed him as a front-runner). How much of elite’s media knows Joe Biden voters. As an example, Josh Barro’s husband was a Pete Buttigieg fundraise, Michelle Goldberg’s husband is/was affiliated with the Warren campaign, one of Thomas Friedman’s foundations received money from Bloomberg.
• If Bernie had held on to more of his (rural) white support, he would be doing better (i.e. Maine).
• Are you sure NLE bringing in more immigrants from Africa will work? They will have to select for more Joy Reid’s and less Ilhan Omar’s
• Yang will make a big announcement tomorrow (I am guessing he will run for NYC mayor), so that will take him out of the VP running presumably (per AE prediction)
• You were correct that "momentum" was a white thing
Who would have thought that the guy who ran in 1987 plagiarizing some speech that some British guy had made about his family would be the top candidate in 2020? And then you add in those compilations of him of him doing creepy things, and the way that he often comes off as a jerk, and might seem a bit senile.
The success of these political dinosaurs always amazes me.Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone
Re: avoiding Omars, that's mostly just a case of not taking too any Somalis. Sub-Saharan Africa is not very Islamic, and it's not that anti-Israel as far as Islam goes, either.
Re: Yang, it was noticing what a good electoral complement he would be to Biden, not a prediction per se. If it's Michelle Obama (who says she doesn't want to run, probably isn't very good on the campaign trail, but won't have to do much of anything as far as campaigning as VP goes), we're going to be looking at a blowout of 2008 proportions, I think.
• I've gotta hand it to you AE. I still can't believe Biden will likely be the nominee. I am impressed with the DNC's military precision in getting behind Biden (Pete/Amy drop out, Beto endorsement, etc.) My view had always been it will be Sanders or go contested.
• I didn't see the media getting behind Biden so quickly. Sure they don't like Sanders but they haven't been much pro-Biden (they dismissed him as a front-runner). How much of elite's media knows Joe Biden voters. As an example, Josh Barro's husband was a Pete Buttigieg fundraise, Michelle Goldberg's husband is/was affiliated with the Warren campaign, one of Thomas Friedman's foundations received money from Bloomberg.
• If Bernie had held on to more of his (rural) white support, he would be doing better (i.e. Maine).
• Are you sure NLE bringing in more immigrants from Africa will work? They will have to select for more Joy Reid's and less Ilhan Omar's
• Yang will make a big announcement tomorrow (I am guessing he will run for NYC mayor), so that will take him out of the VP running presumably (per AE prediction)Replies: @gman, @Ash Williams, @songbird, @follyofwar, @Audacious Epigone
One more thing to butter you up AE
• You were correct that “momentum” was a white thing
You’re putting the cart before the horse here. The racial angle is a pseudo-phenomenon. Biden is winning because he is a real person with a history who has earned his stripes within the power structure. He has substance; perhaps not of the sort you or I care for, but something real nonetheless. Bernie is losing because he is a figment. His campaign is the projection of the fantasies of weak, naive, ridiculous people. Such people and such ideas do not graduate to become forces and facts of life just because they find a candidate to be their avatar. They remain what they are, i.e. substanceless griping. Bernie is a loser who represents losers; Biden is a greaseball who represents the sizeable spiv fraction of the Democratic party. But the spivs will beat the crap out of the dreamers any day of the weak. Blacks are going with Biden because blacks, contrary to the prevailing opinion among HBDers, are not rank idiots to a man. They know at least what side their bread is buttered on, and they know that Bernie’s socialist Utopia isn’t going to do a damn thing for them.
If you remembered your A Confederacy of Dunces, and the outcome of the Crusade for Moorish Dignity, you’d know exactly how blacks were going to react to Bernie. “Man, this a bunch a shit.”
Biden will be the candidate. I’ve been saying this for six months now without wavering or hesitating, but nobody seems to pay an attention to me.
Re: substance, what about blacks going for an unknown in 2008 over Hillary but then going for Hillary in 2016? If she is of substance, why didn't they go for her in 2008? If she isn't of substance, why did they go for her in 2016?
Yeah, Biden has a lot of substance. So much, in fact, that I’m surprised he doesn’t spend most of the day on the toilet.By being a prostitute. But prostitutes are real people too, so you are right on that point.I’m not sure you believe what you are saying. It seems to contradict a comment you left under a different article:So 10 days ago, Bernie supporters were economically successful techies and WASPS. In less than 2 weeks they became weak losers.
[You have to love this guy: he accuses others of projection and of being snobs, when most of his comments are written to stroke his own ego and lord his uniquely intelligent, contradictory, “insights” over the rest of us. And before you accuse me of snobbery for thinking I can read your unspoken motivations, that’s exactly what you are up to.]
In that same comment you say the following:So, let me get this straight: Bernie is distancing himself from AIPAC, not due to any courage or principles, but in order to grandstand and deceive his followers; and the elite are going to punish him for it.
I guess I’m a simpleton, but usually when people take positions that lead to punishment from the powerful; it’s not out of self-interest, but principles.
But, I guess you managed to cover your hide on that point by saying that a long-standing member of Congress and Senate doesn’t know anything about American politics. It’s nice to have someone like you around here that does, to inform us losers from Silicon Valley.You ever visit Wilmington, DE?
Bernie’s socialist Utopia?
Look, I am not one of those Bernie bros who thinks he would actually be able to pursue even a moderate social democratic agenda from the oval office. The president is fairly weak in my opinion on the domestic front; he signs or vetoes bills put in front of him by the legislature, and I have a hard time seeing him getting any decent bills unless a true critical mass insurgency grips the better part of the country. The reason…the congress is full of real prostitutes like Joe Biden.
But those who constantly use the “socialist” label in relation to Bernie, without addressing any of the merits of his proposals, which are standard fare for many western nations, are being lazy and dishonest.
Take the healthcare issue.
In my view, “Medicare-for-All” is a slam-dunk. “Where’s the money going to come from?” is a dishonest question: we are already paying it – in the form of premiums, deductibles, co-pays, fees, higher prices on the insured to pay for the ER visits of the uninsured; employer-based insurance that drains business cash flows away from wage compensation, R&D, Capex, etc.
Much of this money goes to paying for duplicated administrations for all the different insurance companies, many of whose employees exist to find excuses not to pay claims; government bureaucracies staffed full of people trying to navigate the byzantine maze of who qualifies for this or that subsidy; medical billing intermediaries who shuffle endless reams of paper around trying to get someone else to pay.
There are a number of other inefficiencies of our system.
At the low-end of the class spectrum, major labor market distortions are created by income-limited public programs where a poor person can’t get a slightly better paying job because they will lose their benefits. It also applies in the middle-class: I’ve known talented people who wanted to start small businesses, but felt tied to their employer to make sure a sick spouse could see a doctor.
Under our system, where sickness, a social cost, generates immense private benefits for a few, there is an incentive not to actually cure people, but to keep them permanently dependent on the medical industries.
Many illnesses are contagious, i.e. catching illness early and curing people has external benefits, which are not fully exploited.
The reason for this insanity has nothing to do with lack of money or resources. It exists so that Uncle Joe’s rich Johns can keep feeding off the sickness of the citizenry. To be sure, “where’s the money” is never uttered when it comes to foreign wars of choice or TARP bailouts.
On the other hand a truly universal system would simply transfer already existing expenses into a less bureaucratic, simpler, public direction that guarantees insurance stability across the business cycle fluctuations, while reducing anxiety and increasing freedom of movement and choice.
Give me a downside. Please!
Oh, wait; I know what you are going to say: “That’s the Socialism. Derp.”
But, there is one up-side to Americans voting for creepy Uncle Joe.
They are going to get what they deserve.Replies: @dfordoom, @Bree, @Big Dick Bandit
Which in practice is exactly the same as crushing them.
Yes. Knowing that in the long run they’re going to lose anyway, they’ll submit to Conservative Inc straight away.
On both sides the establishment is in complete control. Dissent either gets crushed or worn down or co-opted. There is no possibility of dissent in a two-party system.
Trump has governed as close to as he campaigned to as any Presidential candidate in history. Did you really expect that one man in one position who got there very luckily would be able to deliver absolutely on his most out of the ordinary campaign rhetoric?
Look, that dissident ideas are unpopular is obvious. It does not make them wrong but it is no use pretending that because you think they are right they also must be popular.Replies: @MBlanc46
Then the solution is obvious. Imagine that – blacks are a net Republican vote generator.
That said, Runzie Baby has proven that it is Hispanics that push blacks out, block by block, rather than the other way around. This has not turned the Bay Area or LA less blue (quite the opposite in fact).
Then Harris, and certainly Booker should have done better.
Booker’s misfortune was to be after Obama. Because he actually hits better checkboxes than Obama on all fronts. He is an actual American who is connected to the black experience (unlike Obama who didn’t know the difference between Fred Sanford and George Jefferson), and as a college football player, is not a pencilneck.
Both are mulatto, but Booker’s black part is actually American.
Just wanted to say thanks, Audacious. Two minutes reading your analysis cuts right through the media chaos of the Dem primary.
Then when the Bernie-ish libs who surround me ask “wha’ happened?”, I explain their re-fail with disarming nonchalance, leaving them agape as to how the token right winger understands Dem politics better than they do.
Like the long-suffering Intelligent Dasein, I too was skeptical (if less vocal) of the early Bernie victory predictions. “Wait’ll the day after Super Tuesday,” I thought. And sure enough, in the cold grey light of Wednesday’s dawn, the Bernie Administration evaporates like fairy gold left by a Green Mountain leprechaun.
P.S.
Did you mean “suppress”?
I'm so cute, aren't I?Replies: @Charles Pewitt
No they really are stupid, they vote who they get told to vote, if they were told to vote Sanders they would do so. This is how ALL sub Saharan politics operates, which is why jews are so fond of these dumb blacks.
• I've gotta hand it to you AE. I still can't believe Biden will likely be the nominee. I am impressed with the DNC's military precision in getting behind Biden (Pete/Amy drop out, Beto endorsement, etc.) My view had always been it will be Sanders or go contested.
• I didn't see the media getting behind Biden so quickly. Sure they don't like Sanders but they haven't been much pro-Biden (they dismissed him as a front-runner). How much of elite's media knows Joe Biden voters. As an example, Josh Barro's husband was a Pete Buttigieg fundraise, Michelle Goldberg's husband is/was affiliated with the Warren campaign, one of Thomas Friedman's foundations received money from Bloomberg.
• If Bernie had held on to more of his (rural) white support, he would be doing better (i.e. Maine).
• Are you sure NLE bringing in more immigrants from Africa will work? They will have to select for more Joy Reid's and less Ilhan Omar's
• Yang will make a big announcement tomorrow (I am guessing he will run for NYC mayor), so that will take him out of the VP running presumably (per AE prediction)Replies: @gman, @Ash Williams, @songbird, @follyofwar, @Audacious Epigone
Believe it, and get ready for him to pick Hillary as his running mate (wouldn’t THAT explode some heads).
See above
• I've gotta hand it to you AE. I still can't believe Biden will likely be the nominee. I am impressed with the DNC's military precision in getting behind Biden (Pete/Amy drop out, Beto endorsement, etc.) My view had always been it will be Sanders or go contested.
• I didn't see the media getting behind Biden so quickly. Sure they don't like Sanders but they haven't been much pro-Biden (they dismissed him as a front-runner). How much of elite's media knows Joe Biden voters. As an example, Josh Barro's husband was a Pete Buttigieg fundraise, Michelle Goldberg's husband is/was affiliated with the Warren campaign, one of Thomas Friedman's foundations received money from Bloomberg.
• If Bernie had held on to more of his (rural) white support, he would be doing better (i.e. Maine).
• Are you sure NLE bringing in more immigrants from Africa will work? They will have to select for more Joy Reid's and less Ilhan Omar's
• Yang will make a big announcement tomorrow (I am guessing he will run for NYC mayor), so that will take him out of the VP running presumably (per AE prediction)Replies: @gman, @Ash Williams, @songbird, @follyofwar, @Audacious Epigone
I’m forced to agree: I thought Biden had no chance.
Who would have thought that the guy who ran in 1987 plagiarizing some speech that some British guy had made about his family would be the top candidate in 2020? And then you add in those compilations of him of him doing creepy things, and the way that he often comes off as a jerk, and might seem a bit senile.
The success of these political dinosaurs always amazes me.
What are they talking about? The boomers haven't even come onto the scene yet!Replies: @songbird
And, to think, Biden had two aneurysms in ’88. How does this guy get a clean bill of health from the media?
Who would have thought that the guy who ran in 1987 plagiarizing some speech that some British guy had made about his family would be the top candidate in 2020? And then you add in those compilations of him of him doing creepy things, and the way that he often comes off as a jerk, and might seem a bit senile.
The success of these political dinosaurs always amazes me.Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone
What’s really interesting has been the utter failure of the female candidates (Gabbard, Harris, Klochubar, Warren). It’s not just the triumph of the dinosaurs, but the triumph of pale stale male dinosaurs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvWjdvddb-4
Peace.Replies: @nebulafox
since blacks have a fertility rate of 1.7 , without immigration from Africa or the Caribbean , the black population in the USA will decline .
It’s more difficult, however, because while virtually no one on the progressive left protests the chains of political correctness the NLE has them shackled in, patriots on the right do, and the patriot ranks are growing. This is why, if a real change to the ruling structure occurs, it will necessarily come from the right.
The NLE herd cattle; the establishment right tries to herd cats.
On this topic, I want to open up to my internet friends here in the Unz commentariat. I have come to an understanding that I am bipolar with regard to openness and conscientiousness. I hope that this helps those with similiar disabilities to be able to more effectively grapple with the shame of coming out.
Booker's misfortune was to be after Obama. Because he actually hits better checkboxes than Obama on all fronts. He is an actual American who is connected to the black experience (unlike Obama who didn't know the difference between Fred Sanford and George Jefferson), and as a college football player, is not a pencilneck.
Both are mulatto, but Booker's black part is actually American.Replies: @Digital Samizdat, @Audacious Epigone
Yeah, but Obama had a far better chance of winning. Blacks go with a winner. This time around, they knew Corey Booker couldn’t win, and they are convinced Uncle Bernie can’t win either, so Average Joe Biden it is.
I’d like to express understanding, but honestly I’m not sure what you mean. I know what bipolar means: manic/depressive. But what is “bipolar with regard to openness and conscientiousness” exactly?
1900:
The whole of Africa had a population of 140 million.
Europe had one of 400 million.
2020:
Africa has a population of 1.3 billion.
Europe 700 million.
2100:
Africa = 4 billion+
America must take at least a half billion of those to help out. Europe a half billion to.
It is grossly unfair that those 4 billion+ people can only have one continent.
Black Americans don’t pay tuition or much of their health care costs. Why would they therefore vote for Bernie over hilarious Uncle Biden who was Obama’s Lieutenant?
The globalizers and financializers and treasonous billionaire neoliberals who own and control the corporate media will protect that mentally deranged front man frump named Joe Biden.
White Core America — the new political party soon to be born — will not hesitate to make the wonderful and gracious voting public of the USA aware of all the many brain problems that are afflicting Joe Biden.
To appeal to Bernie Broads the new political party called White Core America will hammer Joe Biden for his support of the IRAQ WAR DEBACLE that was pushed by George W Bush and Dickweed Cheney and the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative Faction in the GOP and the Democrat Party ruling class and Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Broads are just slightly more beautiful and lovely than the beautiful and proud ladies of the AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY. Perhaps the Bernie Broads, in comparison to the AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY ladies, are first among equals — Primus inter Paris — love that bass sound, don’t forget Frenchwoman Marine Le Pen in 2022!!
Joe Biden is a damn brain-damaged warmonger whore for plutocrat billionaire globalizers!
That’s the kind of language that will get the Bernie Broads ladies to bypass the Green Party and vote for the White Core America party!
I wrote this in September of 2018:
Joe Biden voted for — and pushed for — the IRAQ WAR DEBACLE.
Joe Biden has had at least two brain surgeries to fix the many brain problems and brain malfunctions that have seriously damaged Biden’s ability to think clearly and to remember things clearly.
Joe Biden is a brain-damaged treasonous politician whore who will push for more and more overseas war if he is elected president in 2020.
Joe Biden’s brain-damaged warmongering and inability to think clearly is a clear and present threat to the safety, security and sovereignty of the USA.
Biden falsely claims he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning — Michael Tracey, September 2019:
https://www.unz.com/article/bidens-foreign-policy-the-new-world-order-and-woodrow-wilson/#comment-3455450
Joe Biden's 2002 vote to allow George W Bush to have a blank check for the subsequent 2003 war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake of the worst sort.
Joe Biden is a nasty black-hearted politician whore for the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire.
Joe Biden was braying like a sick and deranged animal in 2002 for war in Iraq and George W Bush delivered that war in 2003 and that war was a complete and total debacle disaster disgrace. Thousands of American soldiers were killed and thousands more American soldiers were butchered and burnt and maimed and blasted and had their brains rattled around inside their skulls causing traumatic and long-lasting and permanent brain injury.
Joe Biden Is Responsible For The IRAQ WAR DEBACLE!
DAMMIT!
JOE BIDEN IS A GLOBALIZER, NEO-LIBERAL WARMONGER BASTARD!
Tweets from 2015:
https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/639166203215413248?s=20
https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/639147477044736000?s=20
On both sides the establishment is in complete control. Dissent either gets crushed or worn down or co-opted. There is no possibility of dissent in a two-party system.Replies: @UK
Losers in popularity contests always blame the system.
Trump has governed as close to as he campaigned to as any Presidential candidate in history. Did you really expect that one man in one position who got there very luckily would be able to deliver absolutely on his most out of the ordinary campaign rhetoric?
Look, that dissident ideas are unpopular is obvious. It does not make them wrong but it is no use pretending that because you think they are right they also must be popular.
I’d like to express understanding,
Thanks. The virtual world doesn’t give a lot of love and understanding.
Perhaps I should not have used bipolar. Instead I should have used confused. I try to fit myself within the popular model of using the psychological traits of openness versus concientiousness to explain political orientation and worldview. I think that there is a great deal of substance and expanatory power in that model, but I find can’t discern my “true” orientation. I find myself on one side or the other and sometimes at the extreme poles, hence my confusion.
Peace.Replies: @iffen
• I've gotta hand it to you AE. I still can't believe Biden will likely be the nominee. I am impressed with the DNC's military precision in getting behind Biden (Pete/Amy drop out, Beto endorsement, etc.) My view had always been it will be Sanders or go contested.
• I didn't see the media getting behind Biden so quickly. Sure they don't like Sanders but they haven't been much pro-Biden (they dismissed him as a front-runner). How much of elite's media knows Joe Biden voters. As an example, Josh Barro's husband was a Pete Buttigieg fundraise, Michelle Goldberg's husband is/was affiliated with the Warren campaign, one of Thomas Friedman's foundations received money from Bloomberg.
• If Bernie had held on to more of his (rural) white support, he would be doing better (i.e. Maine).
• Are you sure NLE bringing in more immigrants from Africa will work? They will have to select for more Joy Reid's and less Ilhan Omar's
• Yang will make a big announcement tomorrow (I am guessing he will run for NYC mayor), so that will take him out of the VP running presumably (per AE prediction)Replies: @gman, @Ash Williams, @songbird, @follyofwar, @Audacious Epigone
Tucker Carlson opened his show yesterday with a condemnation of the democrats as immoral and without principles in getting behind a sick old man who is so obviously senile. Even he was blindsided that they would sink so low. The rest of the civilized world is no doubt laughing its ass off, though Putin is preparing for nuclear war.
Joe Biden has had his brain sliced and poked and prodded and pinched in many different ways in two separate brain operations that were bloody enough to make Brian De Palma proud. The sawbones really butchered Biden’s brain on two separate occasions.
I wrote this in September of 2019:
Joe Biden had his brain operated on two different times. Something happened ain’t just a book by Heller!
Joe Biden’s brain operations have possibly screwed up his ability to think properly.
A story — perhaps true — making the rounds in political circles is that Biden’s brain surgeon accidentally left a golf tee inside Biden’s pumpkin head while using his precision surgical reciprocal saw to cut out Biden’s brain malfunction.
Another story — perhaps apocryphal — is that the brain surgeon in Biden’s second brain surgery accidentally left an extra clip inside Biden’s concrete potato salad brain. One clip was used to pinch the aneurysm that was making Biden batty, but the extra clip was left by accident. That clip is now pinching the portion of the brain responsible for making people somewhat logical. This explains why Biden is an irresponsible, illogical politician whore of the worst sort.
Joe Biden pushes mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration and REFUGEE OVERLOAD and ASYLUM SEEKER INUNDATION and unnecessary overseas war and financialization and globalization and trade deal scams and anti-White multiculturalism.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/i-am-a-golden-god/#comment-3453394
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/04/us/biden-resting-after-surgery-for-second-brain-aneurysm.html
Then if Bidens wins, get ready for President Hillary. Biden won’t last even two years in office, let alone four.
NLE = ” neo-liberal establishment ”
It took me a moment. He should have capitalized its use in the sentence prior to NLE making an appearance.
The boy is yet young, he’ll learn
Thanks.
NLE = ” neo-liberal establishment ”
Thanks.
White Core America -- the new political party soon to be born -- will not hesitate to make the wonderful and gracious voting public of the USA aware of all the many brain problems that are afflicting Joe Biden.
To appeal to Bernie Broads the new political party called White Core America will hammer Joe Biden for his support of the IRAQ WAR DEBACLE that was pushed by George W Bush and Dickweed Cheney and the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative Faction in the GOP and the Democrat Party ruling class and Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Broads are just slightly more beautiful and lovely than the beautiful and proud ladies of the AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY. Perhaps the Bernie Broads, in comparison to the AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY ladies, are first among equals -- Primus inter Paris -- love that bass sound, don't forget Frenchwoman Marine Le Pen in 2022!!
Joe Biden is a damn brain-damaged warmonger whore for plutocrat billionaire globalizers!
That's the kind of language that will get the Bernie Broads ladies to bypass the Green Party and vote for the White Core America party!
I wrote this in September of 2018:
Joe Biden voted for — and pushed for — the IRAQ WAR DEBACLE.
Joe Biden has had at least two brain surgeries to fix the many brain problems and brain malfunctions that have seriously damaged Biden’s ability to think clearly and to remember things clearly.
Joe Biden is a brain-damaged treasonous politician whore who will push for more and more overseas war if he is elected president in 2020.
Joe Biden’s brain-damaged warmongering and inability to think clearly is a clear and present threat to the safety, security and sovereignty of the USA.
Biden falsely claims he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning -- Michael Tracey, September 2019:
https://youtu.be/MouFdYVIyvUReplies: @Charles Pewitt
I forgot to put the link to the source of my comment.
https://www.unz.com/article/bidens-foreign-policy-the-new-world-order-and-woodrow-wilson/#comment-3455450
Joe Biden’s 2002 vote to allow George W Bush to have a blank check for the subsequent 2003 war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake of the worst sort.
Joe Biden is a nasty black-hearted politician whore for the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire.
Joe Biden was braying like a sick and deranged animal in 2002 for war in Iraq and George W Bush delivered that war in 2003 and that war was a complete and total debacle disaster disgrace. Thousands of American soldiers were killed and thousands more American soldiers were butchered and burnt and maimed and blasted and had their brains rattled around inside their skulls causing traumatic and long-lasting and permanent brain injury.
Joe Biden Is Responsible For The IRAQ WAR DEBACLE!
DAMMIT!
JOE BIDEN IS A GLOBALIZER, NEO-LIBERAL WARMONGER BASTARD!
Tweets from 2015:
Probably the last hurrah on that side. They get a pass because they have one foot in the grave. The only young guy was a gay. He got a pass for being young because he was gay.
Quite at good speaking, interesting policies and other stuff like that, just doesn't have the star power compared to "gay", "woman", "Latino", "black".
It was just that Bernie was already Bernie and Biden was already Biden. Even "billionaire" was a complete flop for Steyer and Bloomberg, and Bloomberg has an entire news organisation named after him and spent more on each vote than any normal person would ever have to be bribed to pick him.
(There might also later be Gavin Newsom, who benefits by being very good-looking and married to a stunner who sorted out his alcoholism...but then Hollywood looking couple is still an interesting identity as well...)
It's also interesting that the one woman who in recent years has won the Dem nomination, Hillary Clinton, only did so on her husband's coat-tails. Had she not been married to Bill Clinton her political career would have gone nowhere. It's as if the Democrats are the last bastion of patriarchy. A woman is allowed to play if her husband says it's OK.
At the moment it seems quite possible America will have a male homosexual president before it has a woman president. Both seem unlikely, but a woman president seems more unlikely in the short term.Replies: @anon
I think Tucker had a great take on the situation. Biden seems to be the guy who is old and whose intellect is actually fading. And he is incredibly malleable, so basically everyone can get everything out of this guy; all the gibz and all of the foreign wars, his mind is the blank slate from which they can print the carte blanche:
Peace.
That's inevitably going to be people aligned with their respective party establishment's, given the lack of anybody else with the bureaucratic experience of making the government and courts function. The President is an important cog in the machine, but he's just that: one piece of the puzzle. You could theoretically govern by going over their heads and directly appealing to the people on YouTube or something, but that has its own risks for stability. (Though given how America's elites are behaving, you have to wonder whether short-term stability must be sacrificed to preserve long-term stability.)Replies: @Talha
“Bernie is losing because he is a figment. His campaign is the projection of the fantasies of weak, naive, ridiculous people.”
In other words, black or white democrats are not sold on socialism. And if Sen Sanders does not win the nomination — then those whites will vote for VP Biden or Sen Warren.
The problem for conservatives is not wokeness or political correctness. It is that the entire country has shifted less – period. When examining the actual record of left progression — its owned and led by whites.
Major open shifts: the role of religion in public space, the role of men, the power of the nuclear and extended family, traditional family male and female, same sex relations — APA immigration . . . when i read about that shift aside from issues of equal access and treatment its all whites. Even equal access and treatment was hijacked by white feminists and mainstream women.
Laughing. I get it blacks are easy targets leopards can’t change their spots. But if one is being honest all of the above are owned by whites who have been pushing the country left an d I would agree that they have successfully used black social, political and legal issues to do so. That’s te conservative problem.
The problem for VP Pence is not challenging black people to work, blacks work, if they can and always have, the hard sell is that conservatives are not a party to practices that hinder blacks —
that is why the party of republicans’ choices historically are a barrier to reaching those populations.
About immigration —
didn’t listen to blacks in 1890, 1920, not in 1945, not in 1960 … and many of have no idea of the role that latin studies has had on US nationalism in education — deconstructionist theory is tons.
But it is definitely whites doing the pushing.
It's also whites who have been pushing immigration. White small businessmen and white farmers want cheap imported labour. The white upper middle class wants cheap imported nannies and maids and gardeners. The white middle class wants workers to have low wages.
And feminism and the LGBT madness and the environmentalist madness - these have been pushed almost exclusively by whites.
What's incredibly funny is that if a white ethnostate was ever achieved those whites would immediately start pushing for open borders (for all the reasons I outlined above) and they would start pushing even more extreme brands of feminism/environmentalism/LGBT activism. The white ethnostate would within a generation be much more Woke than the present-day US.Replies: @Tusk, @Mr. Rational
That’s good, you think outside the box and don’t want to be pigeon-holed…nothing wrong with that.
Peace.
Want a political prediction —
Cal. Gov. Newsome — that is where the democratic party is headed — that’s what conservatives have to prepare for.
Peace.Replies: @iffen
What box?
They are grandfathered in, that is all. Their identities are already established. If they were new there’s be nothing to catch people’s attention. Just more stale, pale white guys.
Quite at good speaking, interesting policies and other stuff like that, just doesn’t have the star power compared to “gay”, “woman”, “Latino”, “black”.
It was just that Bernie was already Bernie and Biden was already Biden. Even “billionaire” was a complete flop for Steyer and Bloomberg, and Bloomberg has an entire news organisation named after him and spent more on each vote than any normal person would ever have to be bribed to pick him.
(There might also later be Gavin Newsom, who benefits by being very good-looking and married to a stunner who sorted out his alcoholism…but then Hollywood looking couple is still an interesting identity as well…)
That said, Runzie Baby has proven that it is Hispanics that push blacks out, block by block, rather than the other way around. This has not turned the Bay Area or LA less blue (quite the opposite in fact).Replies: @indocon
Well yeah right, now we’re talking about turning that cycle one more time, imagine if Congolese now come to kick the Mexicans out of their homes in LA?
Joe Biden has had his brain operated on two different times.
There is a chance that Biden’s brain got permanently damaged when the doctor was prodding his brain around this way and that inside the skull of Joe Biden.
The doctor has since claimed that Biden’s brain is better than it was before the brain surgeries. There is room for doubt about that.
Joe Biden and his aneurysm-prone coconut are certainly cause for concern.
Is Joe Biden’s Surgically Altered Brain Rotting Like A Bruised Tomato?
I wrote this in August of 2019 about Biden and his sliced up and clamped up brain:
Joe Biden is rumoured to have had armpit hairs surgically transplanted from his own armpits — and donor armpits — into the scalp of his bald head.
A story, perhaps apocryphal, is that Biden’s armpit hair plug transplant surgeon accidentally pierced through Biden’s thick skull while implanting armpit hairs into Biden’s scalp and that did massive damage to Biden’s brain. Joe Biden has had serious problems with his brain — including having brain surgery — and it would seem that multiple brain piercings and surgery have taken a toll on Biden’s ability to think properly.
Did Joe Biden suffer brain damage while getting armpit hair transplanted into his bald scalp?
https://www.unz.com/isteve/jeffrey-epstein-extremely-hairy-and-sweaty/#comment-3423487
Tweet from 2015:
This is an impressive feat of relative unity by black voters, who comprise about 25% of the Democrat electorate compared to white voters who comprise a little over 50% of it.
In 2008 the black vote ratified the signal from whites in the first three states. Obama won Iowa straight up. In 2020 they vetoed those white choices from the first three states.
So you think the fat lady has sung in the Dem primary?
I really can’t make heads or tails out of that, but I’ll just keep on taking you as you come regardless. That means I’m going to hit you with Agrees more often than not.
As for your on-going spat with Twinkie, ‘fraid I ignore most of it because I can’t make heads or tails out of that either.
My problem (?) is that I seem to be an amalgam rather than have a true trend.but I’ll just keep on taking you as you come regardless. That means I’m going to hit you with Agrees more often than not.Ditto (except for the JQ stuff)As for your on-going spat with TwinkieThat has ended. I realized that my evil twin was the problem and I killed him off.Replies: @Tusk, @dfordoom
I really can’t make heads or tails out of that
They are psychological traits. Openness tracks with liberalism while conscientiousness tracks with conservatism. The work seems to be grounded. We may form as a conservative or liberal in the womb.
My problem (?) is that I seem to be an amalgam rather than have a true trend.
but I’ll just keep on taking you as you come regardless. That means I’m going to hit you with Agrees more often than not.
Ditto (except for the JQ stuff)
As for your on-going spat with Twinkie
That has ended. I realized that my evil twin was the problem and I killed him off.
Maybe the right of bearded men in frocks to share locker rooms with girls is now a social conservative value? Maybe abortion is now a social conservative value? Maybe pumping ten-year-olds full of puberty blockers in an attempt to change their sex is now a social conservative value? While believing that biological sex is unchangeable and that marriage is something that happens between a man and a woman is now dangerous social radicalism?
Certainly if you look at Wokeness there's not very much openness in evidence.
And these days it's people holding what used to be regarded as conservative values who want to overthrow the government and break up the nation.
Maybe conservatism is the new liberalism and liberalism is the new conservatism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvWjdvddb-4
Peace.Replies: @nebulafox
To an extent, you can say that about everybody in the race: whether it is Trump, Biden, or Sanders. They are all over 70 years old and are largely influenced by the people who are around them.
That’s inevitably going to be people aligned with their respective party establishment’s, given the lack of anybody else with the bureaucratic experience of making the government and courts function. The President is an important cog in the machine, but he’s just that: one piece of the puzzle. You could theoretically govern by going over their heads and directly appealing to the people on YouTube or something, but that has its own risks for stability. (Though given how America’s elites are behaving, you have to wonder whether short-term stability must be sacrificed to preserve long-term stability.)
Whether they were replaced with someone better or worse, is a separate question.
Peace.
Possibly. But it is startling that the women and the POCs did so spectacularly poorly. If they were about to dominate the party you’d have expected at least one of them to have made a real challenge.
It’s also interesting that the one woman who in recent years has won the Dem nomination, Hillary Clinton, only did so on her husband’s coat-tails. Had she not been married to Bill Clinton her political career would have gone nowhere. It’s as if the Democrats are the last bastion of patriarchy. A woman is allowed to play if her husband says it’s OK.
At the moment it seems quite possible America will have a male homosexual president before it has a woman president. Both seem unlikely, but a woman president seems more unlikely in the short term.
https://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/10obama-hawaii.jpg
• I've gotta hand it to you AE. I still can't believe Biden will likely be the nominee. I am impressed with the DNC's military precision in getting behind Biden (Pete/Amy drop out, Beto endorsement, etc.) My view had always been it will be Sanders or go contested.
• I didn't see the media getting behind Biden so quickly. Sure they don't like Sanders but they haven't been much pro-Biden (they dismissed him as a front-runner). How much of elite's media knows Joe Biden voters. As an example, Josh Barro's husband was a Pete Buttigieg fundraise, Michelle Goldberg's husband is/was affiliated with the Warren campaign, one of Thomas Friedman's foundations received money from Bloomberg.
• If Bernie had held on to more of his (rural) white support, he would be doing better (i.e. Maine).
• Are you sure NLE bringing in more immigrants from Africa will work? They will have to select for more Joy Reid's and less Ilhan Omar's
• Yang will make a big announcement tomorrow (I am guessing he will run for NYC mayor), so that will take him out of the VP running presumably (per AE prediction)Replies: @gman, @Ash Williams, @songbird, @follyofwar, @Audacious Epigone
Re: the prediction, black voters came through. I’ve eaten Kamala Krow and my intention is not to downplay that miss. But the person in the prediction, which was made when she was virtually unknown and looked like it might have been the political prognostication of the cycle after the first debate, isn’t the fundamentally important part. The electoral dynamic is what matters. Is there much of a difference between Harris and Biden? Both are establishment-approved neo-liberals who will do as they’re told.
Re: avoiding Omars, that’s mostly just a case of not taking too any Somalis. Sub-Saharan Africa is not very Islamic, and it’s not that anti-Israel as far as Islam goes, either.
Re: Yang, it was noticing what a good electoral complement he would be to Biden, not a prediction per se. If it’s Michelle Obama (who says she doesn’t want to run, probably isn’t very good on the campaign trail, but won’t have to do much of anything as far as campaigning as VP goes), we’re going to be looking at a blowout of 2008 proportions, I think.
If I’m an HBDer, I obviously don’t think that.
Re: substance, what about blacks going for an unknown in 2008 over Hillary but then going for Hillary in 2016? If she is of substance, why didn’t they go for her in 2008? If she isn’t of substance, why did they go for her in 2016?
Booker's misfortune was to be after Obama. Because he actually hits better checkboxes than Obama on all fronts. He is an actual American who is connected to the black experience (unlike Obama who didn't know the difference between Fred Sanford and George Jefferson), and as a college football player, is not a pencilneck.
Both are mulatto, but Booker's black part is actually American.Replies: @Digital Samizdat, @Audacious Epigone
It’s not about tokenism for blacks, though–it’s about perceived black interests. It’s easy to conflate the two–that’s where I went wrong with my prediction regarding Harris–but they’re not the same thing.
Re: submit, it’s a proleish wrestling term to go with wokehold (instead of chokehold).
I’m so cute, aren’t I?
Yes, I'm saying it or writing it, John Irving from swanky panky Exter, New Hampshire, is the man responsible for all the tranny stuff from Lake Geneva to the Finland Station, and Irving from ritzy Exeter is why a certain Chicago Pritzker is doing his best to use his deranged billionaire balls to appear to be a better woman than real live actual women. These trannies are just as derivative of John Irving and John Lithgow as this new puppy Lady Gaga with her meat dress is derivative of David Byrne with his grass suit.
I blame John Irving and John Lithgow for all this tranny stuff percolating through the globalizer-controlled corporate propaganda apparatus. John Irving wrote a character in a book which became a movie that humorously poked some fun at the peculiarities of cranky New Englanders and their extra crispy cranky type predilections and then Lithgow the Scottish scoundrel used his cold and calculating Scottish ways to absolutely knock the character out of the park with a dead pan dramatic performance for the ages. John Lithgow started all this tranny stuff just like that Watt Scottish guy used his Scottish type brain to fully and completely utilize steam power more efficiently.
John Lithgow and James Watt are two Scottish guys who cooked up a better and more flexible way to use steam for power and the distractionary ploy of trannyism used by the neo-liberals and globalizers to take attention away from class conflict and the evil and immoral machinations of the rancid ruling class of the American Empire.
Greta Thunberg would say to Watt and Lithgow and Irving for good measure: How Dare You?
Dialogue From John Irving's The World According To Garp:
You like football?
Oh yeah, I used to watch it quite a bit!
Well, you might have seen me, I was a tight end with the Philadelphia Eagles. Number 90, Robert Muldoon.
https://youtu.be/XlZUBUSKbFk
It's also interesting that the one woman who in recent years has won the Dem nomination, Hillary Clinton, only did so on her husband's coat-tails. Had she not been married to Bill Clinton her political career would have gone nowhere. It's as if the Democrats are the last bastion of patriarchy. A woman is allowed to play if her husband says it's OK.
At the moment it seems quite possible America will have a male homosexual president before it has a woman president. Both seem unlikely, but a woman president seems more unlikely in the short term.Replies: @anon
At the moment it seems quite possible America will have a male homosexual president before it has a woman president.
Almost no one, including corporate media types, were telling people to vote for Biden after Iowa. They were scrambling with Buttigieg, hoping for a Warren breakthrough, testing Bloomberg, even looking at long-odds Klobuchar. Biden was left for dead. And if blacks had gone along with the zeitgeist, he would’ve been. They revived him, and now the Democrats are going to win in 2020 because of it.
I think it will come down to whether the Biden campaign avoids the egregious mistakes the Hillary campaign made. With a decent campaign Hillary could have won. Biden is probably a lot more politically savvy than Hillary, and he's less obviously obnoxious. He can present himself as a moderate. He appears to have no actual beliefs, which is always an advantage for a politician. He may have the ability to present himself as whatever people want him to be.
Being a successful politician requires the same skill set as being a successful whore. I'll be whatever kind of girl you want me to be. Biden strikes me as having all the skills of a really successful whore. That will make him hard to beat. Bernie was an unsuccessful whore.
But will Biden have good advisors? If so he should have a very strong chance of winning.Replies: @John Johnson, @Dr. Krieger, @Audacious Epigone
Also, Trump will debate him the same way he did with Jeb, Marco, & Kasich. He'll go into the gutter and not roll over the way Donor Class Patsies Paul Ryan & Mitt Romney have been taught to do.
Biden thinks he can intimidate his opponents by calling them racist or flailing about with his tough guy bluster. Those days are over. The power of those smears & that schtick is trivial now.
A lot can happen between now and November.Replies: @Talha
Who would have thought that the guy who ran in 1987 plagiarizing some speech that some British guy had made about his family would be the top candidate in 2020? And then you add in those compilations of him of him doing creepy things, and the way that he often comes off as a jerk, and might seem a bit senile.
The success of these political dinosaurs always amazes me.Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone
Will the boomers ever go away?, they ask.
What are they talking about? The boomers haven’t even come onto the scene yet!
The only thing creepier would be pictures of Pelosi, when she was a senate page, before Hart-Celler - on second thought, it is probably scarier to see current pictures of her. But her brother was the mayor of Baltimore in the '60s. How is that even possible?
Not quite sure I’m following you, but I’d like to try and help if I can.
My problem (?) is that I seem to be an amalgam rather than have a true trend.but I’ll just keep on taking you as you come regardless. That means I’m going to hit you with Agrees more often than not.Ditto (except for the JQ stuff)As for your on-going spat with TwinkieThat has ended. I realized that my evil twin was the problem and I killed him off.Replies: @Tusk, @dfordoom
The whole idea of the political spectrum, through the visualisation of stuff like the political compass, is completely backwards. The whole left-right divide at the moment, or in your case liberalism/openness and conservatism/conscientiousness, just obscures reality. Ryan Faulk (The Alternative Hypothesis) is largely correct in my eyes with the idea that the modern “Left” is more proto-typically right wing in actual form, regardless of delusional ideas they profess. Look at the “Left” and you see people advocating for replacing the working class and supporting megabusinesses like Apple because they say what they want to hear. Look at the “Right” and you see people criticising unchecked consumerism and advocating for nativist labour policies instead of protecting Big Business. Would Guy Debord get along with a modern “far-right” member? Probably I would think. Despite using different terms and coming from the same space the goal seems largely the same.
It’s the exact reason why conservatism will fail. The ideas of today are what the youth will see as the norm, and what they wish to conserve. Good luck getting some 20 years in 2030 to curb rampant online pornography as it’s been part of their life forever. But the second someone goes to ban it, it’s time to conserve our way of life! Progressives also cannot logically make any sense. If tomorrow is different from today, your principles have to adapt, without a consistent logical base for your actions you’re just an accelerationist nihilist who is pushing with reckless abandon in one direction without a clear rational as why. Why would progressives who fought for womans sufferage push for transgender bathrooms? Well they wouldn’t, but the progessive state just pushes from A to Y until you finally come to Z. It’s a completely ridiculous position to be in. I don’t know how to cure liberalism/leftism, but the only way to cure the right is to emphasise reactionary politics more, as that is where the true essence of conservatism lies.
Some people define liberalism vs conservatism as thus: If you think all people are innately equal, you’re a liberal, if you think all people are innately different, you’re a conservative. Realistically a lot of policies and perspectives come from such fundemental grounding. If you think all people are equal, one man being richer than another is unfair, if you think they’re different it makes sense. So I don’t think we should look at policies or positions of people on either Democrat or Republican sides and use that to influence our left/right-liberal/conservative views because it’s wholly redundent.
Everyone would be able to think clearer and make better decisions if they weren’t thought trapped into a two-side political view. It’s the ideological equivilant of the two party system. The authoritarian/libertarian persepctive is equally dumb as a thought defining process but I won’t get into that now.
The problem for VP Pence is not challenging black people to work, blacks work, if they can and always have, the hard sell is that conservatives are not a party to practices that hinder blacks ---
that is why the party of republicans' choices historically are a barrier to reaching those populations.
About immigration --- didn't listen to blacks in 1890, 1920, not in 1945, not in 1960 ... and many of have no idea of the role that latin studies has had on US nationalism in education -- deconstructionist theory is tons.Replies: @dfordoom
To be more precise those whites have been pushing the country rightward on economic issues and leftward on social issues.
But it is definitely whites doing the pushing.
It’s also whites who have been pushing immigration. White small businessmen and white farmers want cheap imported labour. The white upper middle class wants cheap imported nannies and maids and gardeners. The white middle class wants workers to have low wages.
And feminism and the LGBT madness and the environmentalist madness – these have been pushed almost exclusively by whites.
What’s incredibly funny is that if a white ethnostate was ever achieved those whites would immediately start pushing for open borders (for all the reasons I outlined above) and they would start pushing even more extreme brands of feminism/environmentalism/LGBT activism. The white ethnostate would within a generation be much more Woke than the present-day US.
Learn all about "Whites" here.
If you think some ""White small businessmen and white farmers" are the ones with the political capital and monetary resources to get third-worlders imported for their small businesses you've officially lost your mind. I didn't realise companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and so on were "small businesses" but I guess they must be since they get the pay off from importing indians.Replies: @dfordoom
I don't want them to have low wages, but I DO demand meritocracy. The unskilled and semi-skilled do not have merit and do not deserve rewards from mob rule. Let's boot the illegal aliens and fake "refugees" out of this country and re-sort the wage scale accordingly, with due respect to real accomplishment.Replies: @dfordoom, @Not my economy
My problem (?) is that I seem to be an amalgam rather than have a true trend.but I’ll just keep on taking you as you come regardless. That means I’m going to hit you with Agrees more often than not.Ditto (except for the JQ stuff)As for your on-going spat with TwinkieThat has ended. I realized that my evil twin was the problem and I killed him off.Replies: @Tusk, @dfordoom
I’m inclined to agree, but how do you explain why conservatism (I mean social conservatism not the neoliberal Conservatism Inc stuff) is dying out while social liberalism has become more and more dominant?
Maybe the right of bearded men in frocks to share locker rooms with girls is now a social conservative value? Maybe abortion is now a social conservative value? Maybe pumping ten-year-olds full of puberty blockers in an attempt to change their sex is now a social conservative value? While believing that biological sex is unchangeable and that marriage is something that happens between a man and a woman is now dangerous social radicalism?
Certainly if you look at Wokeness there’s not very much openness in evidence.
And these days it’s people holding what used to be regarded as conservative values who want to overthrow the government and break up the nation.
Maybe conservatism is the new liberalism and liberalism is the new conservatism.
But it is definitely whites doing the pushing.
It's also whites who have been pushing immigration. White small businessmen and white farmers want cheap imported labour. The white upper middle class wants cheap imported nannies and maids and gardeners. The white middle class wants workers to have low wages.
And feminism and the LGBT madness and the environmentalist madness - these have been pushed almost exclusively by whites.
What's incredibly funny is that if a white ethnostate was ever achieved those whites would immediately start pushing for open borders (for all the reasons I outlined above) and they would start pushing even more extreme brands of feminism/environmentalism/LGBT activism. The white ethnostate would within a generation be much more Woke than the present-day US.Replies: @Tusk, @Mr. Rational
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/
Learn all about “Whites” here.
If you think some “”White small businessmen and white farmers” are the ones with the political capital and monetary resources to get third-worlders imported for their small businesses you’ve officially lost your mind. I didn’t realise companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and so on were “small businesses” but I guess they must be since they get the pay off from importing indians.
Individually they obviously have very little political influence compared to a mega-corporation but en masse they have considerable clout. And they're a large segment of the Republican base.
It's not just very rich whites pushing mass immigration. It's lots of upper middle class and middle class whites, and lots of rural whites. They don't care about white ethnostates or racial solidarity. They care about their profits. They care about money.
Most whites are in favour of mass immigration. The only whites who are not keen on immigration are the white working class and they have zero political clout. And of course the tiny tiny handful of far right whites who have less than zero political influence.Replies: @Tusk
You should change your handle to Sarcastic Being. Oh…never mind…you’re actually serious.
Yeah, Biden has a lot of substance. So much, in fact, that I’m surprised he doesn’t spend most of the day on the toilet.
By being a prostitute. But prostitutes are real people too, so you are right on that point.
I’m not sure you believe what you are saying. It seems to contradict a comment you left under a different article:
So 10 days ago, Bernie supporters were economically successful techies and WASPS. In less than 2 weeks they became weak losers.
[You have to love this guy: he accuses others of projection and of being snobs, when most of his comments are written to stroke his own ego and lord his uniquely intelligent, contradictory, “insights” over the rest of us. And before you accuse me of snobbery for thinking I can read your unspoken motivations, that’s exactly what you are up to.]
In that same comment you say the following:
So, let me get this straight: Bernie is distancing himself from AIPAC, not due to any courage or principles, but in order to grandstand and deceive his followers; and the elite are going to punish him for it.
I guess I’m a simpleton, but usually when people take positions that lead to punishment from the powerful; it’s not out of self-interest, but principles.
But, I guess you managed to cover your hide on that point by saying that a long-standing member of Congress and Senate doesn’t know anything about American politics. It’s nice to have someone like you around here that does, to inform us losers from Silicon Valley.
You ever visit Wilmington, DE?
Bernie’s socialist Utopia?
Look, I am not one of those Bernie bros who thinks he would actually be able to pursue even a moderate social democratic agenda from the oval office. The president is fairly weak in my opinion on the domestic front; he signs or vetoes bills put in front of him by the legislature, and I have a hard time seeing him getting any decent bills unless a true critical mass insurgency grips the better part of the country. The reason…the congress is full of real prostitutes like Joe Biden.
But those who constantly use the “socialist” label in relation to Bernie, without addressing any of the merits of his proposals, which are standard fare for many western nations, are being lazy and dishonest.
Take the healthcare issue.
In my view, “Medicare-for-All” is a slam-dunk. “Where’s the money going to come from?” is a dishonest question: we are already paying it – in the form of premiums, deductibles, co-pays, fees, higher prices on the insured to pay for the ER visits of the uninsured; employer-based insurance that drains business cash flows away from wage compensation, R&D, Capex, etc.
Much of this money goes to paying for duplicated administrations for all the different insurance companies, many of whose employees exist to find excuses not to pay claims; government bureaucracies staffed full of people trying to navigate the byzantine maze of who qualifies for this or that subsidy; medical billing intermediaries who shuffle endless reams of paper around trying to get someone else to pay.
There are a number of other inefficiencies of our system.
At the low-end of the class spectrum, major labor market distortions are created by income-limited public programs where a poor person can’t get a slightly better paying job because they will lose their benefits. It also applies in the middle-class: I’ve known talented people who wanted to start small businesses, but felt tied to their employer to make sure a sick spouse could see a doctor.
Under our system, where sickness, a social cost, generates immense private benefits for a few, there is an incentive not to actually cure people, but to keep them permanently dependent on the medical industries.
Many illnesses are contagious, i.e. catching illness early and curing people has external benefits, which are not fully exploited.
The reason for this insanity has nothing to do with lack of money or resources. It exists so that Uncle Joe’s rich Johns can keep feeding off the sickness of the citizenry. To be sure, “where’s the money” is never uttered when it comes to foreign wars of choice or TARP bailouts.
On the other hand a truly universal system would simply transfer already existing expenses into a less bureaucratic, simpler, public direction that guarantees insurance stability across the business cycle fluctuations, while reducing anxiety and increasing freedom of movement and choice.
Give me a downside. Please!
Oh, wait; I know what you are going to say: “That’s the Socialism. Derp.”
But, there is one up-side to Americans voting for creepy Uncle Joe.
They are going to get what they deserve.
BTW, you might want to learn to use the MORE tag.Replies: @Mario Partisan
this the best comment on this website (Unz period, not just AE) about the election all year.
any ""conservative"" who isn't a stone cold moron--which almost all of the old-school W era folks are--is starting to realize that once you take 30 seconds to stop your hysterical bleating over ""socialism"" and actually evaluate healthcare in this country, Medicare 4 All is a no-brainer.
nobody ever asks for detailed budgeting on the Forever Wars, because Raytheon/Lockheed/Exxon etc etc are cashing checks.
yet our insane healthcare system, which costs more and does less than every other industrialized nation and would NEVER be a system you'd design from first principles (it organically emerged around our special blend of insurance profiteers and vast geographic 'territories' requiring coverage that begat competing providers) is sacred?
if you defend our healthcare system and *arent* one of the people profiting off it, you're a fucking sucker. full stop.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
What are they talking about? The boomers haven't even come onto the scene yet!Replies: @songbird
Honestly, I get a kind of chill when I see pictures of Biden running in ’87. You can see how different everyone in the frame is – the different clothing/hair, the lack of diversity. It seems supernatural, like seeing Jack in the old picture from the ’20s, at the end of The Shining.
The only thing creepier would be pictures of Pelosi, when she was a senate page, before Hart-Celler – on second thought, it is probably scarier to see current pictures of her. But her brother was the mayor of Baltimore in the ’60s. How is that even possible?
Is this a firm prediction AE?
I think it will come down to whether the Biden campaign avoids the egregious mistakes the Hillary campaign made. With a decent campaign Hillary could have won. Biden is probably a lot more politically savvy than Hillary, and he’s less obviously obnoxious. He can present himself as a moderate. He appears to have no actual beliefs, which is always an advantage for a politician. He may have the ability to present himself as whatever people want him to be.
Being a successful politician requires the same skill set as being a successful whore. I’ll be whatever kind of girl you want me to be. Biden strikes me as having all the skills of a really successful whore. That will make him hard to beat. Bernie was an unsuccessful whore.
But will Biden have good advisors? If so he should have a very strong chance of winning.
I agree. He's the whore that is a Dominatrix all the time. Even when you just want the French Maid outfit.
I think it will come down to whether the Biden campaign avoids the egregious mistakes the Hillary campaign made. With a decent campaign Hillary could have won. Biden is probably a lot more politically savvy than Hillary, and he's less obviously obnoxious. He can present himself as a moderate. He appears to have no actual beliefs, which is always an advantage for a politician. He may have the ability to present himself as whatever people want him to be.
Being a successful politician requires the same skill set as being a successful whore. I'll be whatever kind of girl you want me to be. Biden strikes me as having all the skills of a really successful whore. That will make him hard to beat. Bernie was an unsuccessful whore.
But will Biden have good advisors? If so he should have a very strong chance of winning.Replies: @John Johnson, @Dr. Krieger, @Audacious Epigone
I would still bet on Trump over Biden.
Trump is going to push his buttons in a debate. Biden loses his cool too easily and Trump will be like the schoolyard bully that makes everyone laugh at the good kid. The debate should of course be about policy but that is what will happen.
Bernie would be better at pulling independents and Republicans that are sick of the health care system. Biden is a status quo Democrat and everyone knows it. A lot of independents will stick with the devil they know since Biden isn’t offering them anything.
Biden is not a moderate on guns or abortion and the establishment seems to be hoping this never comes up. Biden is on board for 9 month abortions and suing gun manufacturers for criminal use of firearms. So on two very polarizing issues he takes a hard left stance. Trump will hit him hard on both issues.
Why could the Democrats not find an actual moderate? That is the real question.
At the moment Trump has the huge advantage of facing what appears to be a hopelessly disunited Democrat challenge. Assuming that Biden quickly builds up an unstoppable momentum in the primaries and the Democrats and the media unite behind him then that advantage for Trump disappears. Especially if the Bernie Bros fall into line (which they probably will).
So it's likely that Biden's real chances of winning are considerably brighter than they appear at the moment.
Of course there's the possibility that coronavirus hysteria will tank the economy. If that happens then Trump's chances in the Rust Belt will diminish and he's probably toast.
Also there's the possibility that Biden will choose a running mate specifically tailored to win those states he really needs to win.
There are too many unpredictable factors at the moment. I wouldn't be risking betting the rent money on either Trump or Biden.
Look through the transcripts of any of the three Trump-Hillary debates, and it looks like Trump got smoked. But watch them and the sense is much different. That won't happen with Biden.
But it is definitely whites doing the pushing.
It's also whites who have been pushing immigration. White small businessmen and white farmers want cheap imported labour. The white upper middle class wants cheap imported nannies and maids and gardeners. The white middle class wants workers to have low wages.
And feminism and the LGBT madness and the environmentalist madness - these have been pushed almost exclusively by whites.
What's incredibly funny is that if a white ethnostate was ever achieved those whites would immediately start pushing for open borders (for all the reasons I outlined above) and they would start pushing even more extreme brands of feminism/environmentalism/LGBT activism. The white ethnostate would within a generation be much more Woke than the present-day US.Replies: @Tusk, @Mr. Rational
I have watched obviously illegal-alien gardeners slicing up the last season’s bulbs in the corporate garden and planting the next crop of whatever blooms, which I do not remember. I have also watched and resented semi-skilled (at best, many un-skilled) UAW members making more money than I did as a degreed and far more productive engineer, and with far better job protections.
I don’t want them to have low wages, but I DO demand meritocracy. The unskilled and semi-skilled do not have merit and do not deserve rewards from mob rule. Let’s boot the illegal aliens and fake “refugees” out of this country and re-sort the wage scale accordingly, with due respect to real accomplishment.
If you define it by usefulness to society then a burger-flipper in a fast-food outlet should be more highly paid than a corporate lawyer. The guy who collects your trash should be more highly paid than an advertising exec. A cab driver should get paid more than a congressman.
Do you define merit by academic qualifications? But most academic qualifications are meaningless.
Do you define merit by IQ? In which case everybody should be given an IQ test as a child and their future income should be based on the result.
That's inevitably going to be people aligned with their respective party establishment's, given the lack of anybody else with the bureaucratic experience of making the government and courts function. The President is an important cog in the machine, but he's just that: one piece of the puzzle. You could theoretically govern by going over their heads and directly appealing to the people on YouTube or something, but that has its own risks for stability. (Though given how America's elites are behaving, you have to wonder whether short-term stability must be sacrificed to preserve long-term stability.)Replies: @Talha
That’s true, but I have to give Trump credit, he fired a whole hell of a lot of people that he disagreed with. More than I can remember any other president doing.
Whether they were replaced with someone better or worse, is a separate question.
Peace.
Learn all about "Whites" here.
If you think some ""White small businessmen and white farmers" are the ones with the political capital and monetary resources to get third-worlders imported for their small businesses you've officially lost your mind. I didn't realise companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and so on were "small businesses" but I guess they must be since they get the pay off from importing indians.Replies: @dfordoom
The point is that the desire for mass immigration is not limited to mega-corporations. Small businesses and farmers are every bit as keen on mass immigration. And they do have political clout. If immigration was halted there would be hysteria from (mostly white) small business owners and farmers telling us that the economy was going to collapse without cheap labour. And they would get listened to.
Individually they obviously have very little political influence compared to a mega-corporation but en masse they have considerable clout. And they’re a large segment of the Republican base.
It’s not just very rich whites pushing mass immigration. It’s lots of upper middle class and middle class whites, and lots of rural whites. They don’t care about white ethnostates or racial solidarity. They care about their profits. They care about money.
Most whites are in favour of mass immigration. The only whites who are not keen on immigration are the white working class and they have zero political clout. And of course the tiny tiny handful of far right whites who have less than zero political influence.
Yeah, Biden has a lot of substance. So much, in fact, that I’m surprised he doesn’t spend most of the day on the toilet.By being a prostitute. But prostitutes are real people too, so you are right on that point.I’m not sure you believe what you are saying. It seems to contradict a comment you left under a different article:So 10 days ago, Bernie supporters were economically successful techies and WASPS. In less than 2 weeks they became weak losers.
[You have to love this guy: he accuses others of projection and of being snobs, when most of his comments are written to stroke his own ego and lord his uniquely intelligent, contradictory, “insights” over the rest of us. And before you accuse me of snobbery for thinking I can read your unspoken motivations, that’s exactly what you are up to.]
In that same comment you say the following:So, let me get this straight: Bernie is distancing himself from AIPAC, not due to any courage or principles, but in order to grandstand and deceive his followers; and the elite are going to punish him for it.
I guess I’m a simpleton, but usually when people take positions that lead to punishment from the powerful; it’s not out of self-interest, but principles.
But, I guess you managed to cover your hide on that point by saying that a long-standing member of Congress and Senate doesn’t know anything about American politics. It’s nice to have someone like you around here that does, to inform us losers from Silicon Valley.You ever visit Wilmington, DE?
Bernie’s socialist Utopia?
Look, I am not one of those Bernie bros who thinks he would actually be able to pursue even a moderate social democratic agenda from the oval office. The president is fairly weak in my opinion on the domestic front; he signs or vetoes bills put in front of him by the legislature, and I have a hard time seeing him getting any decent bills unless a true critical mass insurgency grips the better part of the country. The reason…the congress is full of real prostitutes like Joe Biden.
But those who constantly use the “socialist” label in relation to Bernie, without addressing any of the merits of his proposals, which are standard fare for many western nations, are being lazy and dishonest.
Take the healthcare issue.
In my view, “Medicare-for-All” is a slam-dunk. “Where’s the money going to come from?” is a dishonest question: we are already paying it – in the form of premiums, deductibles, co-pays, fees, higher prices on the insured to pay for the ER visits of the uninsured; employer-based insurance that drains business cash flows away from wage compensation, R&D, Capex, etc.
Much of this money goes to paying for duplicated administrations for all the different insurance companies, many of whose employees exist to find excuses not to pay claims; government bureaucracies staffed full of people trying to navigate the byzantine maze of who qualifies for this or that subsidy; medical billing intermediaries who shuffle endless reams of paper around trying to get someone else to pay.
There are a number of other inefficiencies of our system.
At the low-end of the class spectrum, major labor market distortions are created by income-limited public programs where a poor person can’t get a slightly better paying job because they will lose their benefits. It also applies in the middle-class: I’ve known talented people who wanted to start small businesses, but felt tied to their employer to make sure a sick spouse could see a doctor.
Under our system, where sickness, a social cost, generates immense private benefits for a few, there is an incentive not to actually cure people, but to keep them permanently dependent on the medical industries.
Many illnesses are contagious, i.e. catching illness early and curing people has external benefits, which are not fully exploited.
The reason for this insanity has nothing to do with lack of money or resources. It exists so that Uncle Joe’s rich Johns can keep feeding off the sickness of the citizenry. To be sure, “where’s the money” is never uttered when it comes to foreign wars of choice or TARP bailouts.
On the other hand a truly universal system would simply transfer already existing expenses into a less bureaucratic, simpler, public direction that guarantees insurance stability across the business cycle fluctuations, while reducing anxiety and increasing freedom of movement and choice.
Give me a downside. Please!
Oh, wait; I know what you are going to say: “That’s the Socialism. Derp.”
But, there is one up-side to Americans voting for creepy Uncle Joe.
They are going to get what they deserve.Replies: @dfordoom, @Bree, @Big Dick Bandit
Being a whore is how you earn your stripes within the power structure. Politics is prostitution.
BTW, you might want to learn to use the MORE tag.
https://www.unz.com/announcement/bugs-suggestions/#comment-3754371
It’s amazing how parts of the Coalition of the Fringes can compartmentalize their dislike of fellow coalition members, redirecting that animus towards Whites.
For example, immigrants from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh may dislike the antisocial behavior of Blacks, but they still cling to the Democrat party, and will vote Left despite having benefited from capitalism, low taxes & the high trust created by a majority White country.
So it suggests their resentment of Whites may be linked to Anti-Colonial thinking or embarrassment about the corrupt, squalid status of South Asia. It’s also likely they are buying into generic Anti-White narratives spewed by media & schools. Lastly, there may simply be socio-sexual hierarchy resentments at play. Especially in the case of eg. Pramila Jayapal & Fareed Zakaria.
BTW, you might want to learn to use the MORE tag.Replies: @Mario Partisan
Just so you know, I did try to use it; and I make sure to use it whenever I am writing a lengthy post. The reason it failed, is because I tried to use it twice. I wanted to be a smart ass and hide my answer to “what is the upside to Uncle Joe?” But, one is the max, and trying >1 deletes them when you publish the comment.
https://www.unz.com/announcement/bugs-suggestions/#comment-3754371
Individually they obviously have very little political influence compared to a mega-corporation but en masse they have considerable clout. And they're a large segment of the Republican base.
It's not just very rich whites pushing mass immigration. It's lots of upper middle class and middle class whites, and lots of rural whites. They don't care about white ethnostates or racial solidarity. They care about their profits. They care about money.
Most whites are in favour of mass immigration. The only whites who are not keen on immigration are the white working class and they have zero political clout. And of course the tiny tiny handful of far right whites who have less than zero political influence.Replies: @Tusk
Can you provide any evidence for the following claim:
Because as an Audacious Epigone reader I wonder how you miss his constant posts disproving this dumb assertion of yours that you constantly harp on about, here an example from just earlier this year: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/immigration-restrictionism-by-age-and-ethnicity/
Very clearly Whites want immigration restricted the most out of all racial groups. That’s for America, now looking at Europe we see the same thing as reported here: https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-migration-survey-most-europeans-want-less-migration-survey/
You’re also Australian (allegedly White) so you should know that White Australians certainly don’t want immigration without me needing to provide proof.
Funny, once again historically White Europe and European White Americans both want to restrict immigration, so where you find that “Whites are in favour” of mass migration I would love to know. Perhaps you’re getting Whites confused with Fellow Whites, hence the link to Occidental Observer. You should visit it! You could learn something for once.
I think it’s impossible to say at this stage.
At the moment Trump has the huge advantage of facing what appears to be a hopelessly disunited Democrat challenge. Assuming that Biden quickly builds up an unstoppable momentum in the primaries and the Democrats and the media unite behind him then that advantage for Trump disappears. Especially if the Bernie Bros fall into line (which they probably will).
So it’s likely that Biden’s real chances of winning are considerably brighter than they appear at the moment.
Of course there’s the possibility that coronavirus hysteria will tank the economy. If that happens then Trump’s chances in the Rust Belt will diminish and he’s probably toast.
Also there’s the possibility that Biden will choose a running mate specifically tailored to win those states he really needs to win.
There are too many unpredictable factors at the moment. I wouldn’t be risking betting the rent money on either Trump or Biden.
I think Biden could’ve won with his mental faculties of 5 years ago. But it’s too late now. He’s feeble minded & hasn’t faced any resistance or challenges in the primary debates so far. Let’s see if Sanders will actually go after him, and if he can get through a 2 person debate without falling into a mire of gaffes.
Also, Trump will debate him the same way he did with Jeb, Marco, & Kasich. He’ll go into the gutter and not roll over the way Donor Class Patsies Paul Ryan & Mitt Romney have been taught to do.
Biden thinks he can intimidate his opponents by calling them racist or flailing about with his tough guy bluster. Those days are over. The power of those smears & that schtick is trivial now.
Well, well, well..those sneaky bastards:
Peace.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/65/59/2e/65592ef2e4ffb667400c3576d745baa7.jpg
In terms of the “Big Five” personality traits, “cautiousness” is at the opposite end of openness, not conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is its own trait, and its opposite is something of a suite of sub-traits like indolence, lack of responsibility, laid-backness, lack of goal orientation. So based on this, it would be perfectly possible to score highly on openness and conscientiousness.
But perhaps you were just using the wrong word and you find yourself alternating between extremes along the dimension openness-closedness. If so, that’s something I can definitely relate to. I’ve found myself all over the place on personality tests. One of the problems is that because I’m aware of what a question is really asking me, I find it hard to just answer the question literally rather than reflect on how I feel about the personality trait overall. Eg “You find it difficult to speak loudly”. To me it’s obvious that the question is aimed at determining your position along the extroversion-introversion axis, rather than actually being concerned with speech volume. So at times I’m feeling more extroverted I unsurprisingly score highly on this trait; at times I’m more withdrawn, I score lowly. And it’s the same with most questions along all the traits, really. Among the 16 Myer-Briggs types (closely related to Big Five), I’ve felt that some 6 to 8 of them describe me well.
Overall, I haven’t found personality tests to be of much help in understanding my political predisposition. I have found it it simpler to take stock of my “natural” political inclination by reflecting on my reactions to different political ideas. I’ve taken political theory courses at university and read a great deal of political commentary, so I’m quite familiar with the basics of what the various political positions think and say. Even though I can allow that leftists and liberals often make a few good points, to admit it has always felt like a grudging concession; whereas agreeing with conservative positions that I think are correct has always come easily and felt very satisfying. Or to put it another way, I don’t think of myself as a fascist, and I disagree with a great deal in fascism, but even when I disagree, I can understand why a person might think that way. When I disagree (usually hotly) with a leftist, I often can’t even begin to understand why a person would think such a thing – they often seem like a species apart. I find just understanding this about myself has helped more than identifying the underlying personality traits that incline me this way.
I have read very little on the Big Five and other personality traits. Everything I know is 2nd hand for me, but it seems to be ubiquitious. I see references weekly. I won't say that I'm going to remedy that because it would be a lie. I have way too many history and political commentary books in my reading queue. I don't view personality in the same way that I view intelligence. Personality traits seem to be more malleable and more under the sway of environmental conditions. "We" can't "override" our IQ, but I'm not so sure about personality and attitudes. As you point out the "tests" can seem to be a little fuzzy. The whole subject area seems to be a little squishy, but as I wrote, I believe there is something there.
I guess I should make greater use of the smiley face, but I thought that the use of words and phrases like open up, grapple and coming out would be sufficient for this crowd.
https://www.twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1235211134371860481
Peace.Replies: @anon, @songbird
MSNBC did to Bernie what they’ve been doing to Rethuglicans, Christians, gun owners, the pro-life, and a lot of others for years. But it’s different when it hurtz a Socialist. Then it matters
In South Carolina they had some black politician saying they must vote Biden, that is what I am talking about, if that same black said vote for X they would have voted for X. The other places you mentioned did not have a sizeable black voting bloc.
I see your pre-Kamala prediction confidence is back. 😉
A lot can happen between now and November.
“Why could the Democrats not find an actual moderate? That is the real question.”
Obviously, the party bosses aren’t looking for an “actual moderate”. They’re just making sure that they have a guaranteed loser to serve up because it’s the GOP’s turn at two terms. That’s what they did with Hillary. She was expected (by the party bosses) to lose, but the rank and file weren’t in on the scam so they pitched a fit that is till going strong today.
They will pitch another fit that will last until the next election, when it will be the democrat’s turn for two terms.
I think it will come down to whether the Biden campaign avoids the egregious mistakes the Hillary campaign made. With a decent campaign Hillary could have won. Biden is probably a lot more politically savvy than Hillary, and he's less obviously obnoxious. He can present himself as a moderate. He appears to have no actual beliefs, which is always an advantage for a politician. He may have the ability to present himself as whatever people want him to be.
Being a successful politician requires the same skill set as being a successful whore. I'll be whatever kind of girl you want me to be. Biden strikes me as having all the skills of a really successful whore. That will make him hard to beat. Bernie was an unsuccessful whore.
But will Biden have good advisors? If so he should have a very strong chance of winning.Replies: @John Johnson, @Dr. Krieger, @Audacious Epigone
“Bernie was an unsuccessful whore.”
I agree. He’s the whore that is a Dominatrix all the time. Even when you just want the French Maid outfit.
In terms of the “Big Five” personality traits, “cautiousness” is at the opposite end of openness, not conscientiousness.
I have read very little on the Big Five and other personality traits. Everything I know is 2nd hand for me, but it seems to be ubiquitious. I see references weekly. I won’t say that I’m going to remedy that because it would be a lie. I have way too many history and political commentary books in my reading queue. I don’t view personality in the same way that I view intelligence. Personality traits seem to be more malleable and more under the sway of environmental conditions. “We” can’t “override” our IQ, but I’m not so sure about personality and attitudes. As you point out the “tests” can seem to be a little fuzzy. The whole subject area seems to be a little squishy, but as I wrote, I believe there is something there.
I guess I should make greater use of the smiley face, but I thought that the use of words and phrases like open up, grapple and coming out would be sufficient for this crowd.
A lot can happen between now and November.Replies: @Talha
Yeah, like a debate where Trump hits Biden hard and he ends up rambling and incoherent talking about his hairy blond legs in front of the entire nation. I don’t think they’ll be able to save him from that.
Trump just ended the longest US war.
Peace.
It ain't over until it's over and I haven't heard the fat lady yet.Replies: @Talha, @Talha
Trump just ended the longest US war.
It ain’t over until it’s over and I haven’t heard the fat lady yet.
Peace.
https://twitter.com/strwbmilksheikh/status/1235735444471545857I like how homeboy is making motions with his arm as if he is tossing out takfir (declaration of apostasy) like it is charity money to poor people..."And some for you, and some for you, and you too, and you guys over here - can't forrrrrrrrRRRRRrrrrrRRRRrrrrget you..."Note that he mentioned my Sufi Order, though he screwed it up and called it the Qashabandis).Peace.
https://twitter.com/muftitaqiusmani/status/1234204733977567240Replies: @iffen
There’s no way blacks would not vote for Biden out of that field. Democrats learned something about their party.
What should have happened is investigations being opened up against Biden, Burisma, Deep State, in lieu of Corona virus; as background news to the primaries, not the front page
That can still happen. There is a good amount of time. And Biden is corrupt and senile
I hope with all their campaigning that they come across people who have Corona and they they get infected themselves, Biden is the high risk age group so if he gets it he dies.
I'm so cute, aren't I?Replies: @Charles Pewitt
John Irving was a wrestler while he was a young and budding writer and he wasn’t very prole-ish himself, having been born in ritzy ritzy posh Exeter, New Hampshire, but he did mention in a book that a certain big town in New Hampshire was rather more working class than it became after financialization and globalization and neo-liberalism did their dirty business upon the USA.
Yes, I’m saying it or writing it, John Irving from swanky panky Exter, New Hampshire, is the man responsible for all the tranny stuff from Lake Geneva to the Finland Station, and Irving from ritzy Exeter is why a certain Chicago Pritzker is doing his best to use his deranged billionaire balls to appear to be a better woman than real live actual women. These trannies are just as derivative of John Irving and John Lithgow as this new puppy Lady Gaga with her meat dress is derivative of David Byrne with his grass suit.
I blame John Irving and John Lithgow for all this tranny stuff percolating through the globalizer-controlled corporate propaganda apparatus. John Irving wrote a character in a book which became a movie that humorously poked some fun at the peculiarities of cranky New Englanders and their extra crispy cranky type predilections and then Lithgow the Scottish scoundrel used his cold and calculating Scottish ways to absolutely knock the character out of the park with a dead pan dramatic performance for the ages. John Lithgow started all this tranny stuff just like that Watt Scottish guy used his Scottish type brain to fully and completely utilize steam power more efficiently.
John Lithgow and James Watt are two Scottish guys who cooked up a better and more flexible way to use steam for power and the distractionary ploy of trannyism used by the neo-liberals and globalizers to take attention away from class conflict and the evil and immoral machinations of the rancid ruling class of the American Empire.
Greta Thunberg would say to Watt and Lithgow and Irving for good measure: How Dare You?
Dialogue From John Irving’s The World According To Garp:
You like football?
Oh yeah, I used to watch it quite a bit!
Well, you might have seen me, I was a tight end with the Philadelphia Eagles. Number 90, Robert Muldoon.
More Football Metaphors Involving Black Bloc AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY Voters:
The Blacks who voted as a bloc to boost Joe Biden could be seen as blockers in football who clear the path for their teammate to carry the football onwards into enemy territory and hopefully over the goal line for a touchdown.
Joe Biden is the running back who got the handoff from the Democrat Party ruling class and the Black voters of the AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY are the pulling guard who vacates his position on the offensive line to run out in front of the ball carrier to block and neutralize any opposing team tacklers who wish to stop or tackle the ball carrier.
The Democrat Party ruling class is using the Black Bloc voters of the AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY to advance the goals of the neo-liberals and globalizers and billionaires and other constituent parts of the Democrat Party Death Star.
Bernie Sanders is the aggressive defensive player who wishes to dislodge the ball from the ball carrier with a big hit but the pulling guard Black bloc voters are determined to protect and clear the way for their candidate Joe Biden.
In football, the offensive line guards are big and agile and they are usually bigger than the linebacker defensive players who wish to cause a fumble and score a defensive touchdown. The pulling guards who “pull” out of their position to mightily scamper their way to block for the ball carrier are much bigger than the safeties and cornerbacks that are trying to prevent the runner from advancing the ball for a touchdown.
The AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY worked for Joe Biden because of the sacrifice and concentrated voter power of Blacks voting as a formidable bloc.
Joe Biden got the handoff from the globalizer/neo-liberal Democrat Party ruling class and he followed his Black blockers right through Bernie Sanders and the Bernie Broads and the Bernie Bros and Joe Biden got daylight and Joe Biden ran like a bastard to the Democrat Party presidential nomination touchdown.
AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY explained:
The AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY is to win the votes of Black lady voters in the South and other areas of high Black population concentration. Hillary Clinton used the AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY to fend of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democrat Party presidential primary campaign.
Yeah, Biden has a lot of substance. So much, in fact, that I’m surprised he doesn’t spend most of the day on the toilet.By being a prostitute. But prostitutes are real people too, so you are right on that point.I’m not sure you believe what you are saying. It seems to contradict a comment you left under a different article:So 10 days ago, Bernie supporters were economically successful techies and WASPS. In less than 2 weeks they became weak losers.
[You have to love this guy: he accuses others of projection and of being snobs, when most of his comments are written to stroke his own ego and lord his uniquely intelligent, contradictory, “insights” over the rest of us. And before you accuse me of snobbery for thinking I can read your unspoken motivations, that’s exactly what you are up to.]
In that same comment you say the following:So, let me get this straight: Bernie is distancing himself from AIPAC, not due to any courage or principles, but in order to grandstand and deceive his followers; and the elite are going to punish him for it.
I guess I’m a simpleton, but usually when people take positions that lead to punishment from the powerful; it’s not out of self-interest, but principles.
But, I guess you managed to cover your hide on that point by saying that a long-standing member of Congress and Senate doesn’t know anything about American politics. It’s nice to have someone like you around here that does, to inform us losers from Silicon Valley.You ever visit Wilmington, DE?
Bernie’s socialist Utopia?
Look, I am not one of those Bernie bros who thinks he would actually be able to pursue even a moderate social democratic agenda from the oval office. The president is fairly weak in my opinion on the domestic front; he signs or vetoes bills put in front of him by the legislature, and I have a hard time seeing him getting any decent bills unless a true critical mass insurgency grips the better part of the country. The reason…the congress is full of real prostitutes like Joe Biden.
But those who constantly use the “socialist” label in relation to Bernie, without addressing any of the merits of his proposals, which are standard fare for many western nations, are being lazy and dishonest.
Take the healthcare issue.
In my view, “Medicare-for-All” is a slam-dunk. “Where’s the money going to come from?” is a dishonest question: we are already paying it – in the form of premiums, deductibles, co-pays, fees, higher prices on the insured to pay for the ER visits of the uninsured; employer-based insurance that drains business cash flows away from wage compensation, R&D, Capex, etc.
Much of this money goes to paying for duplicated administrations for all the different insurance companies, many of whose employees exist to find excuses not to pay claims; government bureaucracies staffed full of people trying to navigate the byzantine maze of who qualifies for this or that subsidy; medical billing intermediaries who shuffle endless reams of paper around trying to get someone else to pay.
There are a number of other inefficiencies of our system.
At the low-end of the class spectrum, major labor market distortions are created by income-limited public programs where a poor person can’t get a slightly better paying job because they will lose their benefits. It also applies in the middle-class: I’ve known talented people who wanted to start small businesses, but felt tied to their employer to make sure a sick spouse could see a doctor.
Under our system, where sickness, a social cost, generates immense private benefits for a few, there is an incentive not to actually cure people, but to keep them permanently dependent on the medical industries.
Many illnesses are contagious, i.e. catching illness early and curing people has external benefits, which are not fully exploited.
The reason for this insanity has nothing to do with lack of money or resources. It exists so that Uncle Joe’s rich Johns can keep feeding off the sickness of the citizenry. To be sure, “where’s the money” is never uttered when it comes to foreign wars of choice or TARP bailouts.
On the other hand a truly universal system would simply transfer already existing expenses into a less bureaucratic, simpler, public direction that guarantees insurance stability across the business cycle fluctuations, while reducing anxiety and increasing freedom of movement and choice.
Give me a downside. Please!
Oh, wait; I know what you are going to say: “That’s the Socialism. Derp.”
But, there is one up-side to Americans voting for creepy Uncle Joe.
They are going to get what they deserve.Replies: @dfordoom, @Bree, @Big Dick Bandit
Why hasn’t housing become a major issue?
But, I think your question is getting at why “housing” isn’t as talked about in the presidential race as much as healthcare.
Here is my take:
In my view, healthcare is an issue that is appropriate to address at the federal level, for a number of reasons:
1) What we are talking about with “Medicare-for-All” is an insurance program whose purpose is to pay bills for sick patients, i.e. it’s not that complicated, and government can do it as demonstrated by Medicare and veterans’ insurance programs.
2) Insurance pools become more efficient, more cost-effective, and less risky the greater the number of people in the pool, and so a centralized pool is rational.
3) In line with #2, state-level single payer systems and public options are not ideal, because they are smaller pools and prone to adverse selection. Truly sick people, particularly with chronic conditions, would have an incentive to move to states that have implemented single payer and the public option pool would also be weighted towards unhealthy (high-risk) individuals who would be pushed into it by high private sector premiums. As a result, the financial stability of the less centralized/universal pools would be compromised.
4) Aside from the insurance companies and some other private interests, the interests in the general population are more convergent on the healthcare issue, for all the reasons I stated previously.
5) #1-#4 make healthcare a good topic to address in a presidential race.
Housing, on the other hand, is different beast:
1) The interests of the general population are much less convergent because:
a) different states/regions have very different housing markets; those in low cost markets, don’t want to pay to subsidize high cost regions.
b) The segment of the population that does not own a home wants lower prices/affordability, while homeowners like capital gains.
c) a-b mean that talking about housing in presidential race risks injecting a divisive issue and hurts the candidate’s prospects.
2) A home is a private good, with many more aspects related to consumer choice than health insurance. This aspect raises issue for public policy programs aimed at low-income housing programs:
a) what kind of home/apartment should a low-income person get from the state versus a more successful individual who has to pay their own way.
b) where should the low-cost housing units be located? Should you locate the poor people in areas away from the affluent and create ghettos; or should you integrate poor people into nice neighborhoods, risking making the nice neighborhoods not so nice.
c) a-b suggest the problem is better dealt with at the state/local level where the authorities have a better understanding of local conditions, and that raising the issue in a presidential race opens a can of complicated policy worms that distracts from a simple message.
3) Macroeconomic dilemma:
a) The US has a debt-driven economy.
b) When housing prices rise, they increase the value of the collateral that can be used to secure loans, from home-equity lines of credit or second mortgages, and this makes the interest rates on those loans lower, and helps maintain consumer demand and employment.
c) Thus, it is very unclear what policies aimed at reducing the rate of growth of home prices would do for the whole. On the one hand, doing so would compromise the balance sheets of those who already own homes by reducing the asset side, while the debts they have incurred would remain. Credit worthiness of homeowners would fall, lenders would deny more loans and or charge borrowers higher rates, and thus spending power would be compromised.
d) On the other hand, younger people being unable to purchase homes or having to pay exorbitant rents, takes their spending away from the goods and services economy, makes family formation difficult, reduces the fertility rate, and in the long run compromises demand for housing and the thus the capital gains of homeowners.
e) One of Bernie’s talking points has been in regards to college affordability and student debt. Movement on this front might actually help the housing question in a way that is beneficial to all: younger people would come out of school with less or no debt, begin their work careers with clean and credit worthy balance sheets, have greater access to mortgages, and thus be able to afford homes without compromising the balance sheets/capital gains of existing home owners.
This post is already long, so I’ll end with this. I think it is appropriate that AE used the word “schizophrenic” in his reply to you. The word means “split mind,” and actually relates to one of the central critiques that philosophical socialism has with regards to capitalism. The “mind” of the capitalist society is split and compartmentalized. Each sector conducts highly rational calculations within, but the sectors are only communicating via a price signaling system, in which full dialogue is impossible. The various parts of the capitalist “mind” are also frequently at odds with each other, and thus the mind as a whole is irrational, and cannot find holistic solutions to social problems.
But that’s a talk for another post.
It ain't over until it's over and I haven't heard the fat lady yet.Replies: @Talha, @Talha
Sure, but these are details. What it shows is a commitment from this US administration to finally leave the place.
Peace.
https://www.twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1235211134371860481
Peace.Replies: @anon, @songbird
I used to be pretty dismissive of all these talking heads, or talking skulls as some people like to call them, until this wave of Russophobia suddenly came along out of nowhere, and people on the street were talking about how Russia “stole the election.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_BernaysThe Easter Parade smokers of the 1920's jacked up cigarette consumption by women for decades, with obvious health effects. But he earned his money from the tobacco industry. Bernays wrote two books in the 1920's, both are worth reading. Although once read, a person can't view vid the same way anymore, because just about everything we see is intended to influence us. Even now at higher frame rates, vid can induce light hypnosis and brain programming. Programming emotions and beliefs is in just about everything on vid. This MSNBC image is a rather crude example, frankly.Replies: @Dissident
Peace.Replies: @dfordoom
people on the street were talking about how Russia “stole the election.”
Perfect example of molding public opinion. A person who stops watching TV even in airports, stops letting pushfeeds onto his device, ignores Insta-influencers etc. will wind up feeling like a space alien after a while because of a lack of brainwashing.
Everyone should know about this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
The Easter Parade smokers of the 1920’s jacked up cigarette consumption by women for decades, with obvious health effects. But he earned his money from the tobacco industry.
Bernays wrote two books in the 1920’s, both are worth reading. Although once read, a person can’t view vid the same way anymore, because just about everything we see is intended to influence us. Even now at higher frame rates, vid can induce light hypnosis and brain programming. Programming emotions and beliefs is in just about everything on vid. This MSNBC image is a rather crude example, frankly.
https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/tobacco-ad-9.jpg
https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/1987s.jpg
If they actually let Biden out on a debate stage against Trump then we’ll know they are taking a dive this year.
Normie Dem vs conventional GOP (where Trump seems to be at rn) is no contest. Dems win every time.
But if Trump goes to the left of Biden, like he did Hillary in 2016, he’s looking good. Depends on if he goes with his instincts or listens to a bunch of idiots.
Yeah, well that seems to be a staple of American politics now; if your side loses you can’t simply take the loss, you have to blame something else to convince yourself that you were really on the winning team if not for the Russians or the hanging chad or whatever. Seems to be mostly something the Left engages in. I don’t think the Right whines as much about losing elections, yet.
Peace.
Both sides see any electoral defeat in terms of conspiracy theories. It's the Russians, it's the Jews, it's the CIA, it's the Deep State, etc.
This thinking is particularly common in the US, since American politics is so obviously corrupt. But you see the same kind of thinking in other countries. There's been hysteria in Australia over the past few years about the evil Chinese trying to steal our democracy. And way back in the 70s a lot of Australian leftists were convinced that the CIA overthrew the Whitlam Government.
If democracy is such a great system how come nobody actually believes that it works?
It ain't over until it's over and I haven't heard the fat lady yet.Replies: @Talha, @Talha
Also…if the Taliban keeps to the commitment as it has been outlined, it’s been vetted as proper by very high authorities on the religious side*.
The problem of course is that the Taliban is not exactly a command structure that is as disciplined as a modern nation-state that can more readily make sure all elements fall in line with the official policy. There can be elements that go rogue and must be brought into compliance (even through violence).
On a side note, it’s pretty official that Boko Haram (BH) is THE most extreme element in the Muslim world; BH basically has declared the entire Ummah as unbelievers that can be hunted down and enslaved…may Allah guide them or destroy them:
I like how homeboy is making motions with his arm as if he is tossing out takfir (declaration of apostasy) like it is charity money to poor people…”And some for you, and some for you, and you too, and you guys over here – can’t forrrrrrrrRRRRRrrrrrRRRRrrrrget you…”
Note that he mentioned my Sufi Order, though he screwed it up and called it the Qashabandis).
Peace.
The new political party called White Core America is calling for the Bernie Bros and the Bernie Broads to drop the use of the so-called “neoliberlism” term and go with globalization or globalizer instead.
White Core America is cordially inviting the Bernie Bros and the Bernie Broads to abandon the demonic globalizers in the Democrat Party ruling class and head for the beautiful and free green pastures and sylvan splendor of the Green Party. Jill Stein is a show off White Upper Middle Class broad who peacocks around showing off her taut triceps in tarty tops and she ain’t got the old time trade unionist fire in her belly like Bernie Sanders has. In other words, Jill Stein must be gently and respectfully deposed as the commander of the Green Party and a younger Whitey left wing populist must take her place.
I ain’t never got comfortable with this newfangled word called “neoliberalism” and the word ain’t got no bite when spoken out loud. GLOBALIZER is good and it has some POP and the beautiful White boneheads without college degrees and the even more boneheaded dolts with college degrees will respond better to globalizer and globalization than neoliberal.
I only used the term neoliberal once or twice on Twitter, and both times it was to denigrate it decisively.
Now is the time for all good Bernie Broads and Bernie Bros to unchain themselves from the globalizer plutocrats who control the Democrat Party Death Star and head for the Green Party in a Viking style raid. The Green Party can be the exclusive political party of the proud and brave Bernie Broads and Bernie Bros if they only have the courage and strength to wrench themselves free from the evil clutches of the globalizer billionaires who control the Democrat party.
Tweets from 2014 and 2015:
https://twitter.com/strwbmilksheikh/status/1235735444471545857I like how homeboy is making motions with his arm as if he is tossing out takfir (declaration of apostasy) like it is charity money to poor people..."And some for you, and some for you, and you too, and you guys over here - can't forrrrrrrrRRRRRrrrrrRRRRrrrrget you..."Note that he mentioned my Sufi Order, though he screwed it up and called it the Qashabandis).Peace.
https://twitter.com/muftitaqiusmani/status/1234204733977567240Replies: @iffen
You seem to be putting all your eggs in the Taliban basket. Do you think that after all these many years of calling the shots, the warmongers on “our side” are just going to say, “Oh, what the heck, let’s give peace a chance”? How little does it cost to get someone to plant a bomb in that part of the world? Didn’t they have one that killed many people today?
Now it is India's and Pakistan's (and possibly China's) problem to fight over for influence.
Peace.
Sure. We just have to – as the US populace – basically be firm that we do not want anymore involvement. They tried to get us involved in Syria also.
Now it is India’s and Pakistan’s (and possibly China’s) problem to fight over for influence.
Peace.
Normie Dem vs conventional GOP (where Trump seems to be at rn) is no contest. Dems win every time.
But if Trump goes to the left of Biden, like he did Hillary in 2016, he’s looking good. Depends on if he goes with his instincts or listens to a bunch of idiots.Replies: @Rosie
It’s gotten so much easier to call pols out on broken promises now that we have the internets . It’s hard for me to imagine people just letting all that go and giving Trump another chance. He doesn’t even really seem to have tried all that hard.
Lucy won't snatch the football away at the last moment this time. She promised!Replies: @Rosie
Trump has stayed as close to his campaign promises as any president has.
Legal and illegal immigration both down
Wages up
No new wars
Blue collar boom
NAFTA In the trash
China trade policy reset so hard its basically just not even up for debate anymore
The only stuff he really didn’t deliver on is the “left wing” stuff like replacing Obamacare with a better and cheaper system and higher taxes on the wealthy
Blackpillers stay losingReplies: @Rosie
Peace.Replies: @dfordoom
In the modern US the belief that elections are rigged seems to be almost universal, on both the Left and the Right. Right-wingers never stop whining about dirty tricks by the Democrats (the voting machines are rigged, the Democrats have dead people voting, etc etc).
Both sides see any electoral defeat in terms of conspiracy theories. It’s the Russians, it’s the Jews, it’s the CIA, it’s the Deep State, etc.
This thinking is particularly common in the US, since American politics is so obviously corrupt. But you see the same kind of thinking in other countries. There’s been hysteria in Australia over the past few years about the evil Chinese trying to steal our democracy. And way back in the 70s a lot of Australian leftists were convinced that the CIA overthrew the Whitlam Government.
If democracy is such a great system how come nobody actually believes that it works?
Never underestimate the stupidity of the voters. Or their capacity to succumb to wishful thinking.
Lucy won’t snatch the football away at the last moment this time. She promised!
Lucy won't snatch the football away at the last moment this time. She promised!Replies: @Rosie
I have a bad feeling you’ll be proven correct on this. Again, I am very much inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. I know it’s difficult to get anything done in the teeth of establishment opposition, but what I can’t forgive is the totally unnecessary rhetorical capitulation (“greatest numbers ever.”) I would have voted for him again if he had at least continued to speak out for populism and against globalism, but we didn’t even get that for our trouble.
Conservatism implies that there’s something in the current state of affairs worth conserving. Is it any wonder that most under 35 don’t subscribe to that label and have little interest in “conservative principles” in the USA of 2020, even on the Right?
As for social conservatives, if you're a social conservative and you want to conserve the current order then you're a liberal. The current social order is homosexual marriage, homosexual propaganda in schools, Drag Queen Story Hour, the inalienable right of a bearded man in a frock to share a locker room with your daughter, abortion on demand, the right to free access to hardcore porn and the celebration of slut culture.
If you believe there are two sexes, male and female (that you happen to born with), if you don't think homosexual propaganda in schools is a good idea, if you don't want men in the ladies room with your daughter, if you think abortion is wrong and if you're not convinced that homosexuality, hardcore porn and slut culture are awesome then you're a social radical and you must be committed to overthrowing the status quo. Calling such a person conservative in obviously nonsensical.Replies: @MBlanc46
Touche. Done.
I think it will come down to whether the Biden campaign avoids the egregious mistakes the Hillary campaign made. With a decent campaign Hillary could have won. Biden is probably a lot more politically savvy than Hillary, and he's less obviously obnoxious. He can present himself as a moderate. He appears to have no actual beliefs, which is always an advantage for a politician. He may have the ability to present himself as whatever people want him to be.
Being a successful politician requires the same skill set as being a successful whore. I'll be whatever kind of girl you want me to be. Biden strikes me as having all the skills of a really successful whore. That will make him hard to beat. Bernie was an unsuccessful whore.
But will Biden have good advisors? If so he should have a very strong chance of winning.Replies: @John Johnson, @Dr. Krieger, @Audacious Epigone
Yes, barring his suffering a severe medical issue in the next eight months, it is.
The market bubble is deflating. We just had an unscheduled–albeit known in advance–rate cut of .5% and it did nothing. The Fed is up against the cliff’s edge with a jet pack that is out of fuel. On top of that, the coronavirus is going to hurt the most salient, public-facing industries in the economy first–restaurants, retail, travel, leisure.
Biden will run on a return to the normalcy of the Obama halcyon days. He’ll say Trump inherited Obama’s progress and squandered it just like he squanders everything else. Sanders will endorse Biden and campaign with him. After all, “Joe’s a good friend of mine”.
I don't want them to have low wages, but I DO demand meritocracy. The unskilled and semi-skilled do not have merit and do not deserve rewards from mob rule. Let's boot the illegal aliens and fake "refugees" out of this country and re-sort the wage scale accordingly, with due respect to real accomplishment.Replies: @dfordoom, @Not my economy
Meritocracy is a meaningless buzz word. How do you define merit?
If you define it by usefulness to society then a burger-flipper in a fast-food outlet should be more highly paid than a corporate lawyer. The guy who collects your trash should be more highly paid than an advertising exec. A cab driver should get paid more than a congressman.
Do you define merit by academic qualifications? But most academic qualifications are meaningless.
Do you define merit by IQ? In which case everybody should be given an IQ test as a child and their future income should be based on the result.
I don’t think Biden is a particularly good debate matchup for Trump. They’re too similar. Neither of them are able to articulate things well. Both often fail to speak in complete or coherent sentences. But both are quite good at conveying the spirit of what they’re trying to say in a way that is relatable to people on their side. Both are good at not sounding patronizing. Neither are good with details. Both are charismatic, though Trump is moreso.
Look through the transcripts of any of the three Trump-Hillary debates, and it looks like Trump got smoked. But watch them and the sense is much different. That won’t happen with Biden.
The only thing conservatives ever wanted to conserve was liberalism. “Conservative principles” are liberal principles. So conservatives are liberals. Liberals also want to conserve liberalism, so liberals are conservatives too.
As for social conservatives, if you’re a social conservative and you want to conserve the current order then you’re a liberal. The current social order is homosexual marriage, homosexual propaganda in schools, Drag Queen Story Hour, the inalienable right of a bearded man in a frock to share a locker room with your daughter, abortion on demand, the right to free access to hardcore porn and the celebration of slut culture.
If you believe there are two sexes, male and female (that you happen to born with), if you don’t think homosexual propaganda in schools is a good idea, if you don’t want men in the ladies room with your daughter, if you think abortion is wrong and if you’re not convinced that homosexuality, hardcore porn and slut culture are awesome then you’re a social radical and you must be committed to overthrowing the status quo. Calling such a person conservative in obviously nonsensical.
The template answers are too schizophrenic. Biden illustrated in the last debate, complaining about how like houses in black neighborhoods were worth less than houses in white neighborhoods–which is Bad!–and then immediately complaining about white gentrification of black neighborhoods–which, despite raising the prices of those like houses towards parity with houses in white neighborhoods, is also… Bad!
Lmao
Trump has stayed as close to his campaign promises as any president has.
Legal and illegal immigration both down
Wages up
No new wars
Blue collar boom
NAFTA In the trash
China trade policy reset so hard its basically just not even up for debate anymore
The only stuff he really didn’t deliver on is the “left wing” stuff like replacing Obamacare with a better and cheaper system and higher taxes on the wealthy
Blackpillers stay losing
"Immigration down" isn't nearly good enough. It just postpones White dispossession by a few years, at most.
This is how the GOP has run their scam for fifty years. Throw us a bone or two, then threaten apocalypse if a Dem wins. The policy direction of this country has remained the same regardless of the letter behind the name of whatever marionette currently occupies the WH. I'm done with it.
Trump's greatest potential was always his ability to reach and radicalize the White working-class masses. He has failed to do that.Replies: @dfordoom
White Core America is cordially inviting the Bernie Bros and the Bernie Broads to abandon the demonic globalizers in the Democrat Party ruling class and head for the beautiful and free green pastures and sylvan splendor of the Green Party. Jill Stein is a show off White Upper Middle Class broad who peacocks around showing off her taut triceps in tarty tops and she ain't got the old time trade unionist fire in her belly like Bernie Sanders has. In other words, Jill Stein must be gently and respectfully deposed as the commander of the Green Party and a younger Whitey left wing populist must take her place.
I ain't never got comfortable with this newfangled word called "neoliberalism" and the word ain't got no bite when spoken out loud. GLOBALIZER is good and it has some POP and the beautiful White boneheads without college degrees and the even more boneheaded dolts with college degrees will respond better to globalizer and globalization than neoliberal.
I only used the term neoliberal once or twice on Twitter, and both times it was to denigrate it decisively.
Now is the time for all good Bernie Broads and Bernie Bros to unchain themselves from the globalizer plutocrats who control the Democrat Party Death Star and head for the Green Party in a Viking style raid. The Green Party can be the exclusive political party of the proud and brave Bernie Broads and Bernie Bros if they only have the courage and strength to wrench themselves free from the evil clutches of the globalizer billionaires who control the Democrat party.
Tweets from 2014 and 2015:
https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/560877066082873344?s=20
https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/448507851557044225?s=20Replies: @Audacious Epigone
They won’t use your term though, because the woke define it as anti-semitic, racist, etc etc. It’s part of the wokehold they’re stuck in.
I don't want them to have low wages, but I DO demand meritocracy. The unskilled and semi-skilled do not have merit and do not deserve rewards from mob rule. Let's boot the illegal aliens and fake "refugees" out of this country and re-sort the wage scale accordingly, with due respect to real accomplishment.Replies: @dfordoom, @Not my economy
If anybody needs a textbook example of Vox Day’s “gamma” behavior it’s this comment
Hate to see it
Trump has governed as close to as he campaigned to as any Presidential candidate in history. Did you really expect that one man in one position who got there very luckily would be able to deliver absolutely on his most out of the ordinary campaign rhetoric?
Look, that dissident ideas are unpopular is obvious. It does not make them wrong but it is no use pretending that because you think they are right they also must be popular.Replies: @MBlanc46
Um, the “Dreamers” are still here. The Wall isn’t built.
As for social conservatives, if you're a social conservative and you want to conserve the current order then you're a liberal. The current social order is homosexual marriage, homosexual propaganda in schools, Drag Queen Story Hour, the inalienable right of a bearded man in a frock to share a locker room with your daughter, abortion on demand, the right to free access to hardcore porn and the celebration of slut culture.
If you believe there are two sexes, male and female (that you happen to born with), if you don't think homosexual propaganda in schools is a good idea, if you don't want men in the ladies room with your daughter, if you think abortion is wrong and if you're not convinced that homosexuality, hardcore porn and slut culture are awesome then you're a social radical and you must be committed to overthrowing the status quo. Calling such a person conservative in obviously nonsensical.Replies: @MBlanc46
Indeed. I’ve been using Reactionary for some time.
Conservative never really had a clear meaning and these days it's a dangerously misleading term. Even the term social conservative is inaccurate and misleading. I should start calling myself a Social Reactionary.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
It’s certainly preferable to using the term conservative.
Conservative never really had a clear meaning and these days it’s a dangerously misleading term. Even the term social conservative is inaccurate and misleading. I should start calling myself a Social Reactionary.
Sadly that doesn’t obviate my point.
Conservative never really had a clear meaning and these days it's a dangerously misleading term. Even the term social conservative is inaccurate and misleading. I should start calling myself a Social Reactionary.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
The best word is traditionalist, with a capital T if you’re also a follower of the original Catholic magisterium. But you are unfortunately an atheist, which is a great shame. You seem so astute on many other things. I really wish you weren’t one.
The only problem with being a traditionalist/reactionary is that the society to which we'd like to return doesn't exist any more, and I'm not sure it can be revived as it was. I do think however that we could take the best features of the society of the past and apply them to a new social order.
Being a good reactionary it goes without saying that I see capitalism as the most destructive force that has ever been unleashed on humanity. Almost all the social and cultural ills of our present-day society can be traced back to capitalism. That doesn't necessarily mean I want socialism as such, although I'd prefer socialism to capitalism. Again I think there are traditional models from which we could learn (such as the mediæval guild system). And I'd prefer a paternalistic monarchy to democracy. Democracy has been very nearly as harmful as capitalism.
Any chance of distributism being revived?
Of course none of the things I'd like to see happen are even remotely doable politically. I don't even know where one would start.
Traditionalist is OK but I think I like reactionary better because it sounds less passive.
The only problem with being a traditionalist/reactionary is that the society to which we’d like to return doesn’t exist any more, and I’m not sure it can be revived as it was. I do think however that we could take the best features of the society of the past and apply them to a new social order.
Being a good reactionary it goes without saying that I see capitalism as the most destructive force that has ever been unleashed on humanity. Almost all the social and cultural ills of our present-day society can be traced back to capitalism. That doesn’t necessarily mean I want socialism as such, although I’d prefer socialism to capitalism. Again I think there are traditional models from which we could learn (such as the mediæval guild system). And I’d prefer a paternalistic monarchy to democracy. Democracy has been very nearly as harmful as capitalism.
Any chance of distributism being revived?
Of course none of the things I’d like to see happen are even remotely doable politically. I don’t even know where one would start.
First, let me say that I live in a region that is notorious for high home prices/rents. Occasionally I switch over to NPR on my commutes and there are discussions about the housing crisis in my state/city and how to handle it.
But, I think your question is getting at why “housing” isn’t as talked about in the presidential race as much as healthcare.
Here is my take:
In my view, healthcare is an issue that is appropriate to address at the federal level, for a number of reasons:
1) What we are talking about with “Medicare-for-All” is an insurance program whose purpose is to pay bills for sick patients, i.e. it’s not that complicated, and government can do it as demonstrated by Medicare and veterans’ insurance programs.
2) Insurance pools become more efficient, more cost-effective, and less risky the greater the number of people in the pool, and so a centralized pool is rational.
3) In line with #2, state-level single payer systems and public options are not ideal, because they are smaller pools and prone to adverse selection. Truly sick people, particularly with chronic conditions, would have an incentive to move to states that have implemented single payer and the public option pool would also be weighted towards unhealthy (high-risk) individuals who would be pushed into it by high private sector premiums. As a result, the financial stability of the less centralized/universal pools would be compromised.
4) Aside from the insurance companies and some other private interests, the interests in the general population are more convergent on the healthcare issue, for all the reasons I stated previously.
5) #1-#4 make healthcare a good topic to address in a presidential race.
Housing, on the other hand, is different beast:
1) The interests of the general population are much less convergent because:
a) different states/regions have very different housing markets; those in low cost markets, don’t want to pay to subsidize high cost regions.
b) The segment of the population that does not own a home wants lower prices/affordability, while homeowners like capital gains.
c) a-b mean that talking about housing in presidential race risks injecting a divisive issue and hurts the candidate’s prospects.
2) A home is a private good, with many more aspects related to consumer choice than health insurance. This aspect raises issue for public policy programs aimed at low-income housing programs:
a) what kind of home/apartment should a low-income person get from the state versus a more successful individual who has to pay their own way.
b) where should the low-cost housing units be located? Should you locate the poor people in areas away from the affluent and create ghettos; or should you integrate poor people into nice neighborhoods, risking making the nice neighborhoods not so nice.
c) a-b suggest the problem is better dealt with at the state/local level where the authorities have a better understanding of local conditions, and that raising the issue in a presidential race opens a can of complicated policy worms that distracts from a simple message.
3) Macroeconomic dilemma:
a) The US has a debt-driven economy.
b) When housing prices rise, they increase the value of the collateral that can be used to secure loans, from home-equity lines of credit or second mortgages, and this makes the interest rates on those loans lower, and helps maintain consumer demand and employment.
c) Thus, it is very unclear what policies aimed at reducing the rate of growth of home prices would do for the whole. On the one hand, doing so would compromise the balance sheets of those who already own homes by reducing the asset side, while the debts they have incurred would remain. Credit worthiness of homeowners would fall, lenders would deny more loans and or charge borrowers higher rates, and thus spending power would be compromised.
d) On the other hand, younger people being unable to purchase homes or having to pay exorbitant rents, takes their spending away from the goods and services economy, makes family formation difficult, reduces the fertility rate, and in the long run compromises demand for housing and the thus the capital gains of homeowners.
e) One of Bernie’s talking points has been in regards to college affordability and student debt. Movement on this front might actually help the housing question in a way that is beneficial to all: younger people would come out of school with less or no debt, begin their work careers with clean and credit worthy balance sheets, have greater access to mortgages, and thus be able to afford homes without compromising the balance sheets/capital gains of existing home owners.
This post is already long, so I’ll end with this. I think it is appropriate that AE used the word “schizophrenic” in his reply to you. The word means “split mind,” and actually relates to one of the central critiques that philosophical socialism has with regards to capitalism. The “mind” of the capitalist society is split and compartmentalized. Each sector conducts highly rational calculations within, but the sectors are only communicating via a price signaling system, in which full dialogue is impossible. The various parts of the capitalist “mind” are also frequently at odds with each other, and thus the mind as a whole is irrational, and cannot find holistic solutions to social problems.
But that’s a talk for another post.
Imagine a “Food-for-All” program. The government pays for everyone’s food. Why would that be better than just a program targeting poor people who need food assistance? Isn’t the current system where most people get to make his or her own decision on how much of their income to spend on food better than having government bureaucrats making those decisions? Does a government program where you take money from people and then give it back to them benefit anyone except the people who get jobs as tax collectors and government employees who work for the program?
By your logic, aren’t private insurance companies just taking your money and giving it back to you. So why does anyone buy health insurance? (Don’t say because Obama made them, they bought it voluntarily before.) Insurance is a risk mitigation service for large but unexpected expenses. Private or public, it is, generally, a more efficient mechanism for dealing with risk, than having each individual set aside their own money. That’s why people choose to hand their money to private companies who give it back to them when they get sick. Health insurance is not like food.
Now, you are going to say that the private system gives people more choice about how much of their income to spend on health insurance. That may be true to some degree, but there is a difference between real choice and the illusion of choice.
The choices with regard to how much to spend on health insurance relate to: the premium, the deductible, co-pays, HMO/PPO, and how much coverage is provided for a plethora of different medical services. Freedom of choice is constrained by a number of factors for many people, ranging from income to their level of health. People with severe medical conditions are not really free to choose inexpensive plans. They need quality plans to cover their conditions and are going to be offered premium choices commensurate with their risk to the insurer and if they are low-moderate income they do not really have the choice of a high deductible. Are they really choosing how much to spend? No.
I have never worked in insurance, but I have spent a minute or two studying some economics. In a phd micro course you work with pricing models that pertain to markets that involve asymmetric information, adverse selection and moral hazard, i.e. models that are relevant to the insurance markets. It’s a lot of game theory and what you realize is that the insurance companies design their various health plan options in such a way so that the individuals who are high risk self-select into the high premium plans because the low premiums plans are highly suboptimal for them. And that’s when the insurance company has no idea whether a buyer is high risk or not. Choice is largely an illusion in my opinion, because the insurance companies have designed their plans by solving your optimization problem first. They offer you “choices” when they already know what a person of a certain income/health profile is going to choose.
In a single payer system, you are not choosing how much money to hand over at all. You are right. But, like I said, the main factors driving one’s “choice” are budget constraints and health status. Now, consider a public system financed via progressive taxation. By and large, the healthy tend to be young, and the young tend to earn less money. So the young and healthy pay less into the public system, just like they would choose to in a private one. Similarly, the older who are more advanced in their careers and who need more care, are going to pay more just like in a private system.
The difference is security. In a public system you are not screwed if you lose your job. Think about the poor schmucks that came down with a serious diagnosis in the wake of the 2008/2009 crash. I bet most of them thought just like you before they were in need. Did they get what they deserved?
Another thing about the private system and the illusion of choice. I have had family members who chose to spend large sums of money on certain kinds of supplemental insurances in prep for their old age. When they needed the service, what happened? The insurance company found an excuse not to pay. A lot of choice, huh? Not only is this the illusion of choice, it is the illusion of security, too.I already addressed the problem of a targeted system to the poor (labor market distortions, etc.) in my original replies to Intelligent Dasein and Bree . Go read those (again if you need to).
Lots to unpack here as the SJWs say.
Your analogy seems logical on a very superficial level, but “food” is a very different good than medical care.
Yes, the current system for food is better than having government bureaucrats make your food decisions. That’s why no western nation has a system where the government buys everyone’s food for them. But most western nations have a single payer public health insurance system.
By your logic, aren’t private insurance companies just taking your money and giving it back to you. So why does anyone buy health insurance? (Don’t say because Obama made them, they bought it voluntarily before.) Insurance is a risk mitigation service for large but unexpected expenses. Private or public, it is, generally, a more efficient mechanism for dealing with risk, than having each individual set aside their own money. That’s why people choose to hand their money to private companies who give it back to them when they get sick. Health insurance is not like food.
Now, you are going to say that the private system gives people more choice about how much of their income to spend on health insurance. That may be true to some degree, but there is a difference between real choice and the illusion of choice.
The choices with regard to how much to spend on health insurance relate to: the premium, the deductible, co-pays, HMO/PPO, and how much coverage is provided for a plethora of different medical services. Freedom of choice is constrained by a number of factors for many people, ranging from income to their level of health. People with severe medical conditions are not really free to choose inexpensive plans. They need quality plans to cover their conditions and are going to be offered premium choices commensurate with their risk to the insurer and if they are low-moderate income they do not really have the choice of a high deductible. Are they really choosing how much to spend? No.
I have never worked in insurance, but I have spent a minute or two studying some economics. In a phd micro course you work with pricing models that pertain to markets that involve asymmetric information, adverse selection and moral hazard, i.e. models that are relevant to the insurance markets. It’s a lot of game theory and what you realize is that the insurance companies design their various health plan options in such a way so that the individuals who are high risk self-select into the high premium plans because the low premiums plans are highly suboptimal for them. And that’s when the insurance company has no idea whether a buyer is high risk or not. Choice is largely an illusion in my opinion, because the insurance companies have designed their plans by solving your optimization problem first. They offer you “choices” when they already know what a person of a certain income/health profile is going to choose.
In a single payer system, you are not choosing how much money to hand over at all. You are right. But, like I said, the main factors driving one’s “choice” are budget constraints and health status. Now, consider a public system financed via progressive taxation. By and large, the healthy tend to be young, and the young tend to earn less money. So the young and healthy pay less into the public system, just like they would choose to in a private one. Similarly, the older who are more advanced in their careers and who need more care, are going to pay more just like in a private system.
The difference is security. In a public system you are not screwed if you lose your job. Think about the poor schmucks that came down with a serious diagnosis in the wake of the 2008/2009 crash. I bet most of them thought just like you before they were in need. Did they get what they deserved?
Another thing about the private system and the illusion of choice. I have had family members who chose to spend large sums of money on certain kinds of supplemental insurances in prep for their old age. When they needed the service, what happened? The insurance company found an excuse not to pay. A lot of choice, huh? Not only is this the illusion of choice, it is the illusion of security, too.
I already addressed the problem of a targeted system to the poor (labor market distortions, etc.) in my original replies to Intelligent Dasein and Bree . Go read those (again if you need to).
Trump has stayed as close to his campaign promises as any president has.
Legal and illegal immigration both down
Wages up
No new wars
Blue collar boom
NAFTA In the trash
China trade policy reset so hard its basically just not even up for debate anymore
The only stuff he really didn’t deliver on is the “left wing” stuff like replacing Obamacare with a better and cheaper system and higher taxes on the wealthy
Blackpillers stay losingReplies: @Rosie
AFAIK, that may be true, but it’s also not saying much.
“Immigration down” isn’t nearly good enough. It just postpones White dispossession by a few years, at most.
This is how the GOP has run their scam for fifty years. Throw us a bone or two, then threaten apocalypse if a Dem wins. The policy direction of this country has remained the same regardless of the letter behind the name of whatever marionette currently occupies the WH. I’m done with it.
Trump’s greatest potential was always his ability to reach and radicalize the White working-class masses. He has failed to do that.
And Trump is an extreme social radical. He's more fully onboard with the LGBT agenda than any previous president.
Trump has not changed the culture. That's because as far as the Culture War is concerned he's an enemy. He's on the side of the homosexuals and the trannies. Trump is totally in favour of the current degeneracy.
And because Trump has not changed the culture his few positive achievements will be swept away five minutes after the Democrats recapture the White House. Trump was the last chance to change American culture for the better. He failed to do so and he didn't even try because he didn't want to.
America did not need to be made great again. America needed to be made a moral civilised country again. Trump was never going to do that.Replies: @Rosie, @Dissident
Yeah, Biden has a lot of substance. So much, in fact, that I’m surprised he doesn’t spend most of the day on the toilet.By being a prostitute. But prostitutes are real people too, so you are right on that point.I’m not sure you believe what you are saying. It seems to contradict a comment you left under a different article:So 10 days ago, Bernie supporters were economically successful techies and WASPS. In less than 2 weeks they became weak losers.
[You have to love this guy: he accuses others of projection and of being snobs, when most of his comments are written to stroke his own ego and lord his uniquely intelligent, contradictory, “insights” over the rest of us. And before you accuse me of snobbery for thinking I can read your unspoken motivations, that’s exactly what you are up to.]
In that same comment you say the following:So, let me get this straight: Bernie is distancing himself from AIPAC, not due to any courage or principles, but in order to grandstand and deceive his followers; and the elite are going to punish him for it.
I guess I’m a simpleton, but usually when people take positions that lead to punishment from the powerful; it’s not out of self-interest, but principles.
But, I guess you managed to cover your hide on that point by saying that a long-standing member of Congress and Senate doesn’t know anything about American politics. It’s nice to have someone like you around here that does, to inform us losers from Silicon Valley.You ever visit Wilmington, DE?
Bernie’s socialist Utopia?
Look, I am not one of those Bernie bros who thinks he would actually be able to pursue even a moderate social democratic agenda from the oval office. The president is fairly weak in my opinion on the domestic front; he signs or vetoes bills put in front of him by the legislature, and I have a hard time seeing him getting any decent bills unless a true critical mass insurgency grips the better part of the country. The reason…the congress is full of real prostitutes like Joe Biden.
But those who constantly use the “socialist” label in relation to Bernie, without addressing any of the merits of his proposals, which are standard fare for many western nations, are being lazy and dishonest.
Take the healthcare issue.
In my view, “Medicare-for-All” is a slam-dunk. “Where’s the money going to come from?” is a dishonest question: we are already paying it – in the form of premiums, deductibles, co-pays, fees, higher prices on the insured to pay for the ER visits of the uninsured; employer-based insurance that drains business cash flows away from wage compensation, R&D, Capex, etc.
Much of this money goes to paying for duplicated administrations for all the different insurance companies, many of whose employees exist to find excuses not to pay claims; government bureaucracies staffed full of people trying to navigate the byzantine maze of who qualifies for this or that subsidy; medical billing intermediaries who shuffle endless reams of paper around trying to get someone else to pay.
There are a number of other inefficiencies of our system.
At the low-end of the class spectrum, major labor market distortions are created by income-limited public programs where a poor person can’t get a slightly better paying job because they will lose their benefits. It also applies in the middle-class: I’ve known talented people who wanted to start small businesses, but felt tied to their employer to make sure a sick spouse could see a doctor.
Under our system, where sickness, a social cost, generates immense private benefits for a few, there is an incentive not to actually cure people, but to keep them permanently dependent on the medical industries.
Many illnesses are contagious, i.e. catching illness early and curing people has external benefits, which are not fully exploited.
The reason for this insanity has nothing to do with lack of money or resources. It exists so that Uncle Joe’s rich Johns can keep feeding off the sickness of the citizenry. To be sure, “where’s the money” is never uttered when it comes to foreign wars of choice or TARP bailouts.
On the other hand a truly universal system would simply transfer already existing expenses into a less bureaucratic, simpler, public direction that guarantees insurance stability across the business cycle fluctuations, while reducing anxiety and increasing freedom of movement and choice.
Give me a downside. Please!
Oh, wait; I know what you are going to say: “That’s the Socialism. Derp.”
But, there is one up-side to Americans voting for creepy Uncle Joe.
They are going to get what they deserve.Replies: @dfordoom, @Bree, @Big Dick Bandit
dawg, this shit right here?
this the best comment on this website (Unz period, not just AE) about the election all year.
any “”conservative”” who isn’t a stone cold moron–which almost all of the old-school W era folks are–is starting to realize that once you take 30 seconds to stop your hysterical bleating over “”socialism”” and actually evaluate healthcare in this country, Medicare 4 All is a no-brainer.
nobody ever asks for detailed budgeting on the Forever Wars, because Raytheon/Lockheed/Exxon etc etc are cashing checks.
yet our insane healthcare system, which costs more and does less than every other industrialized nation and would NEVER be a system you’d design from first principles (it organically emerged around our special blend of insurance profiteers and vast geographic ‘territories’ requiring coverage that begat competing providers) is sacred?
if you defend our healthcare system and *arent* one of the people profiting off it, you’re a fucking sucker. full stop.
” . . . whites have been pushing the country rightward on economic issues . . .”
Globalizing the economy as is taking place is not conservative, it tends to embrace all the most damaging aspects of liberal agendas.
That's why conservatives support globalisation.
And most whites are liberals (or liberals who call themselves conservatives) and they support globalisation because globalisation is liberalism. Free trade, open borders, Social Justice - these are right-wing liberal positions. Liberalism is an ideology of the Right.
Free trade, free markets and open borders (the three pillars of right-wing thought) have been pushed by white people.
“Being a good reactionary it goes without saying that I see capitalism as the most destructive force that has ever been unleashed on humanity. Almost all the social and cultural ills of our present-day society can be traced back to capitalism.”
I don’t think that is accurate. I would have to understand what you mean by capitalism, definitions matter. In this case, what is called capitalism does not merely violate the fine tuning but entire concepts. What is happening with ever increasing speed and breadth is that business and government are acting in each others interests — minus value added to the citizens of this country. It matters not a twiddle if a desk is twenty percent cheaper because it is made in China if fewer are able to buy desks. The aspect of capitalism is is that it creates opportunity, not that it centralizes the economic streams such that they control the economic space.
We need to stop think that the US is responsible for spreading corporate models of fictionalization. Strength is not the debt ratio. Strength of the economy is in the value it provides for its population to earn a living. The problem with the wealthy having access to the top tiers is that their image of standard of living is their own, as opposed to the realities of where most people. So by rigging the system to their advantage with governments help the standard of living as they imagine it becomes a faux standard.
Recently in discussions about developing nations, people point to the poverty and say see . . . x, h and q is true of them. And they in turn strive to be that which is wholly unrealistic given their economic means of production. Capitalism does not seek wealth for wealth’s sake. N or is a process for crushing the competition or seeking to control product. And in reality, the accusation of greed is not a feature of capitalism — had the government allowed the country ‘s businesses to deal with the consequences of their carelessness, the reality is that they would be less inclined to do it. That’s ameliorating effects of violating rules, standards, norms and best practices.
I don’t but the schtick that the economy is better — not when one looks at the processes involved. And unless the current executive has terminated his undocumented employees (and not used insider games to get them legal — terminated them and hired US citizens) I am dubious about the genuine attention on immigration. No US citizen should settle – not on this issue.
Wages are not hirer. M ore people are employed but wage stagflation remains, that as the standard of living — has increased.
https://hbr.org/2017/10/why-wages-arent-growing-in-america
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/wage-stagnation--myth-and-reality/2019/12/15/47c42690-1f69-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
In short, the way to really guage economic growth is by increased full time employment, wage increases (the WSJ is nuts). The reason wages increase is to reflect the breadth and depth of scope of a growing economy. Want to know if the economy is growing imports to exports The country remains in a state of buying more than it sells.
Again the gamesmanship of calculating GDP is outmoded and in my view as expressed numerous times — to the point of boring (not saying much I am usually boring — laugh) is stop counting what’s on the shelf as profit as opposed to overhead — terminal sales is the way to measure. Of course not being rich and anything but, makes me unworthy of comprehending the economy, so says the current executive — also nuts.
“No new wars
Blue collar boom
NAFTA In the trash”
NAFTA was replaced by another nefarious program with all of the same ills. Here’s your improved diversity —– signed and seal by the current executive.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/nafta-and-usmca-weighing-impact-north-american-trade
Blue collar — from the horses mouth
https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/all-things-work/pages/the-blue-collar-drought.aspx
If we are going to bankrupt the country by spending tax dollars — by all means spend it on US citizens. Go ahead build infrastructure — well worth the expense in my view.
Note: no one that i know of thinks the country could stand a real assessment of how things work — I disagree — which of course makes me nuts.
"Immigration down" isn't nearly good enough. It just postpones White dispossession by a few years, at most.
This is how the GOP has run their scam for fifty years. Throw us a bone or two, then threaten apocalypse if a Dem wins. The policy direction of this country has remained the same regardless of the letter behind the name of whatever marionette currently occupies the WH. I'm done with it.
Trump's greatest potential was always his ability to reach and radicalize the White working-class masses. He has failed to do that.Replies: @dfordoom
Yes, I agree with that. It’s because he doesn’t actually give a damn about the white working class. He also doesn’t give a damn about immigration – in fact he is by nature and conviction intensely pro-immigration.
And Trump is an extreme social radical. He’s more fully onboard with the LGBT agenda than any previous president.
Trump has not changed the culture. That’s because as far as the Culture War is concerned he’s an enemy. He’s on the side of the homosexuals and the trannies. Trump is totally in favour of the current degeneracy.
And because Trump has not changed the culture his few positive achievements will be swept away five minutes after the Democrats recapture the White House. Trump was the last chance to change American culture for the better. He failed to do so and he didn’t even try because he didn’t want to.
America did not need to be made great again. America needed to be made a moral civilised country again. Trump was never going to do that.
Globalizing the economy as is taking place is not conservative, it tends to embrace all the most damaging aspects of liberal agendas.Replies: @dfordoom
There’s no such thing as a conservative. A conservative is just a liberal who doesn’t like paying taxes. Conservatism as a political philosophy is liberalism. People who claim to be conservatives are in fact liberals.
That’s why conservatives support globalisation.
And most whites are liberals (or liberals who call themselves conservatives) and they support globalisation because globalisation is liberalism. Free trade, open borders, Social Justice – these are right-wing liberal positions. Liberalism is an ideology of the Right.
Free trade, free markets and open borders (the three pillars of right-wing thought) have been pushed by white people.
I don't but the schtick that the economy is better --- not when one looks at the processes involved. And unless the current executive has terminated his undocumented employees (and not used insider games to get them legal -- terminated them and hired US citizens) I am dubious about the genuine attention on immigration. No US citizen should settle - not on this issue. Wages are not hirer. M ore people are employed but wage stagflation remains, that as the standard of living -- has increased.https://hbr.org/2017/10/why-wages-arent-growing-in-americahttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/wage-stagnation--myth-and-reality/2019/12/15/47c42690-1f69-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.htmlhttps://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/In short, the way to really guage economic growth is by increased full time employment, wage increases (the WSJ is nuts). The reason wages increase is to reflect the breadth and depth of scope of a growing economy. Want to know if the economy is growing imports to exports The country remains in a state of buying more than it sells.Again the gamesmanship of calculating GDP is outmoded and in my view as expressed numerous times -- to the point of boring (not saying much I am usually boring -- laugh) is stop counting what's on the shelf as profit as opposed to overhead -- terminal sales is the way to measure. Of course not being rich and anything but, makes me unworthy of comprehending the economy, so says the current executive -- also nuts.Replies: @dfordoom
I agree. But capitalism wants high unemployment and low wages. That’s the nature of capitalism.
I agree. GDP is meaningless.
Because capitalists will do whatever happens to be in their interests. That’s the nature of capitalism. Getting into bed with big government means higher corporate profits. Capitalists have no ideology other than greed. Capitalists are whores. They’ll do anything for money.
And Trump is an extreme social radical. He's more fully onboard with the LGBT agenda than any previous president.
Trump has not changed the culture. That's because as far as the Culture War is concerned he's an enemy. He's on the side of the homosexuals and the trannies. Trump is totally in favour of the current degeneracy.
And because Trump has not changed the culture his few positive achievements will be swept away five minutes after the Democrats recapture the White House. Trump was the last chance to change American culture for the better. He failed to do so and he didn't even try because he didn't want to.
America did not need to be made great again. America needed to be made a moral civilised country again. Trump was never going to do that.Replies: @Rosie, @Dissident
This. The right has. always failed to appreciate that no lasting, serious change is possible without cultural change. The taboo on explicit White identity politics will keep us going down exactly the same road, perhaps a bit slower when Republicans win elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_BernaysThe Easter Parade smokers of the 1920's jacked up cigarette consumption by women for decades, with obvious health effects. But he earned his money from the tobacco industry. Bernays wrote two books in the 1920's, both are worth reading. Although once read, a person can't view vid the same way anymore, because just about everything we see is intended to influence us. Even now at higher frame rates, vid can induce light hypnosis and brain programming. Programming emotions and beliefs is in just about everything on vid. This MSNBC image is a rather crude example, frankly.Replies: @Dissident
And Trump is an extreme social radical. He's more fully onboard with the LGBT agenda than any previous president.
Trump has not changed the culture. That's because as far as the Culture War is concerned he's an enemy. He's on the side of the homosexuals and the trannies. Trump is totally in favour of the current degeneracy.
And because Trump has not changed the culture his few positive achievements will be swept away five minutes after the Democrats recapture the White House. Trump was the last chance to change American culture for the better. He failed to do so and he didn't even try because he didn't want to.
America did not need to be made great again. America needed to be made a moral civilised country again. Trump was never going to do that.Replies: @Rosie, @Dissident
I would not dispute either claim. (Concerning the second, see here and here.) But on both, hasn’t President Trump’s record as President been a mixed one? Do you dispute the claim that immigration has been considerably (even if not sufficiently) reduced under Trump?
How plausible is it that any of the candidates who Trump defeated would have been better on either immigration or “LGBTQ”? (With the possible exception, for the latter, of a Republican such as Ted Cruz.)
Just the question of judges and Supreme Court Justices alone would seem decisive in this regard.
Most relevantly at this point, is there a single candidate from among Trump’s realistic rivals for November who is not far worse on both counts?
In fact on social issues and immigration the Trump Presidency has actually shifted the Overton Window leftwards. Once there's a Democrat president again you're going to see a Social Justice push that will make your eyes water. And as a result of the Trump Presidency it is now entirely respectable and socially acceptable for cultural leftists to argue for total open borders.
I suspect that history will show that the Trump Presidency made things worse rather than better.
This is what the corrupt parties of the Right rely on. “We’re vicious, corrupt, morally bankrupt and incompetent but the other side might be even worse.” It’s the politics of fear and despair. And it means that the parties of the Right can go on being vicious, corrupt, morally bankrupt and incompetent.
That’s irrelevant. As soon as the Democrats are back in the saddle they’ll go full open borders. That’s because Trump has filed to change the political culture.
In fact on social issues and immigration the Trump Presidency has actually shifted the Overton Window leftwards. Once there’s a Democrat president again you’re going to see a Social Justice push that will make your eyes water. And as a result of the Trump Presidency it is now entirely respectable and socially acceptable for cultural leftists to argue for total open borders.
I suspect that history will show that the Trump Presidency made things worse rather than better.
Well, okay, “as close to” covers a multiple of sins. I’d argue that Obama governed at least as closely to his campaign promises as Trump has, but I’ll concede your point. President Trump is still light years away from doing the things that he said he would do.
this the best comment on this website (Unz period, not just AE) about the election all year.
any ""conservative"" who isn't a stone cold moron--which almost all of the old-school W era folks are--is starting to realize that once you take 30 seconds to stop your hysterical bleating over ""socialism"" and actually evaluate healthcare in this country, Medicare 4 All is a no-brainer.
nobody ever asks for detailed budgeting on the Forever Wars, because Raytheon/Lockheed/Exxon etc etc are cashing checks.
yet our insane healthcare system, which costs more and does less than every other industrialized nation and would NEVER be a system you'd design from first principles (it organically emerged around our special blend of insurance profiteers and vast geographic 'territories' requiring coverage that begat competing providers) is sacred?
if you defend our healthcare system and *arent* one of the people profiting off it, you're a fucking sucker. full stop.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
It’s really too bad that every single Democrat–at least initially, a few of them sorta kinda tried to walk it back later–indicated in front of not just a national but an international audience that illegal aliens would be able to utilize the Medicare-for-all program. It’s doubly bad given the salience of immigration, especially illegal immigration, among the Republican electorate. Their insane pledge guaranteed unworkably strong, partisan opposition from the outset.