Revenge of the Koch Brothers Proposal
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
The following graph shows immigration restrictionism indices, by social class, from the onset of the Great Awokening through the latest iteration of the GSS. The survey asked respondents what they “think the number of immigrants nowadays to America should be”. The IR index is calculated as follows: (2*%reduced a lot)+(% reduced a little)-(% increased a little)-(2*% increased a lot):
Even elite opinion tilts modestly towards a reduction of immigration into the country. But the lower and working classes emphatically lean towards curtailing it. If only the American working class had someone running for president who could be their voice on the issue. If only.
GSS variables used: CLASS, YEAR(2012-2018), LETIN1A
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
You can see that the people who bear the heaviest competition against immigrants know where their interests lie.
Bernie is absolutely spineless, and what is more, if someone replaced him with a Bernie android that espoused a reductionist stance, it wouldn’t matter because there are too many perverse incentives for the other corrupt pols.
I hate to reference a horrible movie, but you’d have to do a Futureworld and replace them all with androids. And even then, I’m not sure it wouldn’t require android ICE agents and local android cops to enforce the law.
While it is cute to call Republicans dumb if, in no other sense than the unenlightened self-interest of the Koch Brothers — and I do resort to that rhetoric on frequent occasion — people really need to start thinking seriously about extended phenotypes of parasite genes expressing in the bodies of elites.
There is a reason, after all, for the origin of the word “parasite”:
Sen Sanders . . . I would be hit by lightening
twice.
Only on Koch left in the fridge now. They will be neither commemorated or remembered by their people. Someday, foreign-stock Americans will own most of the shares of their companies. The names they may have left on a school here, or library/bridge/theater there, will be erased someday in favor of a vibrant American, in a then rather socialist-leaning coumtry.
Cheers.
If Trump doesn’t run an ad with that quote cut against Sanders endorsing free healthcare for illegals, his comms team will have been woefully negligent.
The New York Times’ David Leonhardt reminds us of the bygone days when Bernie Sanders spoke some sense on immigration.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/23/opinion/bernie-sanders-trump-2020.html
Leonhardt cautions that if Sanders is the eventual nominee, the “uncomfortable compromises” that may be necessary for him to increase his chances of defeating Trump,
I am repeating below something I had posted in November because of its obvious relevance here.
Anyone want to guess who wrote the following quotes?
Those, believe it or not, were excerpts from a 2006 Paul Krugman column entitled North of the Border.
If it’s cheaper for big corporations to outsource jobs overseas, then it’s cheaper to resettle refugees outside the U.S.
that’s a point i never see made
It's not just big corporations who lust for cheap labor, it's the "little guy" too. The type for whom the American Chamber of Commerce speaks for: hospitality, restaurants, landscaping, construction, etc....The "little guy", petit bourgeois businessman, as the commies would call him, is a huge problem in this country. Privatize all profit, externalize all cost.Replies: @Mark G.
I hate to reference a horrible movie, but you'd have to do a Futureworld and replace them all with androids. And even then, I'm not sure it wouldn't require android ICE agents and local android cops to enforce the law.Replies: @snorlax
Simpler than that; even if Bernie re-flip-flopped on immigration (fat chance, and it’s not like he was ever a restrictionist; his peak NumbersUSA grade was C-), the ultra-left Supreme Court Justices he’d appoint would simply legislate open borders from the bench.
Bernie Sanders is not a serious candidate. He is a withered testament to the fact the grim persistence, even in the channels of the manifestly idiotic, will eventually attain to its own inglorious success; but this is not the sort of thing that is truly inspirational to anyone. Nobody, in their heart of hearts, really wants to be Bernie Sanders, and that is why he is unelectable.
And it will not do to say in this instance that “Nobody took Donald Trump seriously either, and look what happened.” Analogizing on the basis of mere external trappings is the tone-deaf’s way of doing history. There is no stare decisis in the field of ripening actuality; Bernie cannot lay claim to a Trump-like success just because he was once considered a Trump-like dark horse. After all, some losers lose for a reason. In their heart of hearts, people do want to be Donald Trump. It looks like it feels cool to be Trump, while being Bernie Sanders looks like it feels like a case of laryngitis. That is why Trump wins and Bernie doesn’t.
Furthermore, Bernie gives no evidence that he is at all interested in foreign policy whatsoever. If he were president, he would simply let the Pentagon write its own rulebooks while he himself got summarily taken to the cleaners by every two-bit dictator and scoundrel under the four winds. People sense these things, and they aren’t going to give the power to the cross between Jimmy Carter and Gilbert Gottfried.
Bernie is not going to make it in the real election. Giving away the store is a cheap and womanish way to buy popularity. But it only works if the real power decides to sit on its hands, which it won’t.
Peace.Replies: @anon, @Dissident
Well, who is the serious candidate then? The buffoon Trump? The clowns Biden and Woods? The faggot Bloomberg?Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Anyone want to guess who wrote the following quotes? Those, believe it or not, were excerpts from a 2006 Paul Krugman column entitled North of the Border.Replies: @iffen
Bernie understands that you sometimes have to lie in order to do good.
However, a left-wing coalition these days involves supporting unrestricted immigration, because the leadership of the party wants more nonwhite people who will likely wind up voting Democrat. His core issue is economic inequality (he's made this clear since 1972), so he'll gladly flip-flop on a second-tier (to him) issue like immigration.
So, while a President Sanders might be more willing to compromise on immigration than a President Warren or Buttigieg, you should still vote for Trump, because his base wants less immigration, and Bernie's wants more.Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone
~ ~ ~
Re: Bernie denouncing AIPAC: Is he the first prominent Presidential candidate to do this?Replies: @iffen
I actually do believe Bernie Sanders wants to help the working class. (I further agree with him about billionaihs–they’re the ones making money sending the jobs overseas and profiting off cheap labor after all.)
However, a left-wing coalition these days involves supporting unrestricted immigration, because the leadership of the party wants more nonwhite people who will likely wind up voting Democrat. His core issue is economic inequality (he’s made this clear since 1972), so he’ll gladly flip-flop on a second-tier (to him) issue like immigration.
So, while a President Sanders might be more willing to compromise on immigration than a President Warren or Buttigieg, you should still vote for Trump, because his base wants less immigration, and Bernie’s wants more.
In spite of what AE says, the Republican political class and their funders are all in for open borders. It is a question of whether Trump or Sanders would be more likely to veto open borders legislation.Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone
Liberty, equality, or diversity: Choose one.
However, a left-wing coalition these days involves supporting unrestricted immigration, because the leadership of the party wants more nonwhite people who will likely wind up voting Democrat. His core issue is economic inequality (he's made this clear since 1972), so he'll gladly flip-flop on a second-tier (to him) issue like immigration.
So, while a President Sanders might be more willing to compromise on immigration than a President Warren or Buttigieg, you should still vote for Trump, because his base wants less immigration, and Bernie's wants more.Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone
So, while a President Sanders might be more willing to compromise on immigration than a President Warren or Buttigieg, you should still vote for Trump, because his base wants less immigration,
In spite of what AE says, the Republican political class and their funders are all in for open borders. It is a question of whether Trump or Sanders would be more likely to veto open borders legislation.
“After all, some losers lose for a reason. In their heart of hearts, people do want to be Donald Trump. It looks like it feels cool to be Trump . . .”
Uhhh no. I didn’t vote for the current executive because I wanted to be like him. In fact, truth b told I would prefer he be less like him in a myriad of ways. My personal sentiments about the executive take second, third, . . . place to agenda I voted for him to advance. And there re issues there.
By now, the argument that he is better than his opponents wanes for cause of that agenda. For all of the bravado, the current president needs his suits constantly pressed.
I think here Mr. Antle and others — a lot of missed, squandered, opportunities to get things done, and the first of those is a wall, which has both practical advantage and well as symbolic — not a fence — a wall. They are correct, there were plenty of opportunities . . . had they been taken, the road less traveled . . . .
Balloons would be going up over any democratic nominee.
Bernie Sanders was our Sam Gompers Trade Unionist Immigration Restrictionist Jew Hero until he cruelly broke our hearts!
Bernie, how dare you! As Greta Garbo Thunberg might say.
Bernie Sanders betrayed our love without a second thought and he divided up our robes — Bernie Sanders sold out the honest and decent immigration restrictionist populists like it was nothing!
One minute we were cheering on our Bernie like he just hit a 500 foot home run to dead center field in the old Ebbetts Field after Bernie Sanders said that open borders mass immigration was a Koch Brothers proposal, and then Bernie changed his mind to grab for the immigrant vote by walking back his sensible comments about the harmful effects of mass immigration on workers and workers’ wages and bargaining power and other matters.
Bernie Sanders was made extra crispy cranky by some nutcake Jew named Ezra Klein who pushed open borders mass immigration and old dog Bernie Sanders had to put this damn puppy puke Klein in his place.
Bernie Sanders was Sam Gompers in the flesh as he rhetorically bashed the open borders talk of the young Jew boob named Klein, and we all loved it.
But then Bernie Sanders broke our hearts!
Tweets from 2015:
In 2015, Bernie Sanders Declares Open Borders Mass Immigration A “Koch Brothers Proposal”:
If his opponent is Bloomberg, he has to run ads highlighting his anti-generic white stands, will he?
This Is A Bernie Sanders Tweet From 2016:
When was the last time that mass legal immigration fanatic Trump mentioned the WHITE WORKING CLASS by name?
WHITES are the people that dare not have their name spoken by FAT ASS IMMIGRATION FANATIC TRUMP!
Trump is now screaming that he wants to flood the USA with mass legal immigration “in the largest numbers ever.”
Trump refuses to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.
Trump has made sure to flood the USA with visa foreigners and green card foreigners and student visa foreigners and H-1B visa foreigners and H-2A visa foreigners and other guest worker visa foreigners and every other kind of legal mumbo jumbo that brings more foreigners into the USA.
Trump and the Republican Party CHEAP LABOR FACTION are using mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration as demographic weapons to attack and destroy the European Christian ancestral core of the USA.
White Core America Party Immigration Pledge:
IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW!
DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS NOW!
REMOVE ALL FOREIGNERS NOW!
I also seem to recall that he won in Flint, which makes me wonder if he was successful, or perhaps, more likely Muslims don't really care, since they see him as part of an anti-white coalition, or are just naturally enamored by socialism, and the prospect of free gibs.
Though, it is perhaps true what some people say of him - that he is the least Zionist among the mainstream candidates.Replies: @Jay Fink
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/798192678785716224?s=20
When was the last time that mass legal immigration fanatic Trump mentioned the WHITE WORKING CLASS by name?
WHITES are the people that dare not have their name spoken by FAT ASS IMMIGRATION FANATIC TRUMP!
Trump is now screaming that he wants to flood the USA with mass legal immigration "in the largest numbers ever."
Trump refuses to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.
Trump has made sure to flood the USA with visa foreigners and green card foreigners and student visa foreigners and H-1B visa foreigners and H-2A visa foreigners and other guest worker visa foreigners and every other kind of legal mumbo jumbo that brings more foreigners into the USA.
Trump and the Republican Party CHEAP LABOR FACTION are using mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration as demographic weapons to attack and destroy the European Christian ancestral core of the USA.
White Core America Party Immigration Pledge:
IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW!
DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS NOW!
REMOVE ALL FOREIGNERS NOW!Replies: @songbird
Bernie might have been saying “white working class” as a strategy to obfuscate his ethnic origins. I recall seeing some spot, where he called either himself or his parents “Polish.”
I also seem to recall that he won in Flint, which makes me wonder if he was successful, or perhaps, more likely Muslims don’t really care, since they see him as part of an anti-white coalition, or are just naturally enamored by socialism, and the prospect of free gibs.
Though, it is perhaps true what some people say of him – that he is the least Zionist among the mainstream candidates.
Off topic but, AE, what do you think of this? Are you noticing what I am noticing?
I think there is a good theory that Coronavirus does not thrive in warm, humid conditions.
Think about it:
(1) No new cases in Singapore. Where it seemed like COVID-19 was on the loose and going exponential there, it instead stopped and there have been no deaths, and most have already recovered. Singapore is tropical.
(2) There seems to be no outbreak in Africa, where China has a massive presence and travel with China is open. Nothing has been reported in India with its subtropical climate. Is this simply due to lack of testing? If people were falling to pneumonia, it would be noticed, right?
(3) COVID-19 seems to affect mainly temperate places in winter.
(4) Cold and flu season is the cold winter months, where the air is dry. Cold, dry conditions seem to be optimum for cold and flu-type viral outbreaks.
See,
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
This shows several things:
(1) Individuals, organizations and hospitals can probably achieve a lot of protection by humidifying indoors.
(2) Relief may be coming in late spring and summer
(3) COVID-19 may roar back next fall and winter after a summer lull
(4) Authorities would basically have the summer to get their act together and come up with a vaccine or cure fast before fall and winter brings it back.
Epigone, what do you think of this:
I think there is a good theory that Coronavirus does not thrive in warm, humid conditions.
Think about it:
(1) No new cases in Singapore. Where it seemed like COVID-19 was on the loose and going exponential there, it instead stopped and there have been no deaths, and most have already recovered. Singapore is tropical.
(2) There seems to be no outbreak in Africa, where China has a massive presence and travel with China is open. Nothing has been reported in India with its subtropical climate. Is this simply due to lack of testing? If people were falling to pneumonia, it would be noticed, right?
(3) COVID-19 seems to affect mainly temperate places in winter.
(4) Cold and flu season is the cold winter months, where the air is dry. Cold, dry conditions seem to be optimum for cold and flu-type viral outbreaks.
This shows several things:
(1) Individuals, organizations and hospitals can probably achieve a lot of protection by humidifying indoors.
(2) Relief may be coming in late spring and summer
(3) COVID-19 may roar back next fall and winter after a summer lull
(4) Authorities would basically have the summer to get their act together and come up with a vaccine or cure fast before fall and winter brings it back.
DNC elites want to import labor they can control. It would not be surprising for the Koch brothers to support Corporate Left mass immigration theology.
Trump 1st Term has focused on building blue collar jobs in the U.S., Which has broken the DNC hold on Main Street.
Trump 2nd Term should address abuses in visas and Birthright Citizenship.
Even if if you believe that Trump is not strong on these issues, remember the only other option in November will be a full-on Open Borders, Corporate Left Democrat. The U.S. electoral system effectively locks out other options.
You can be 100% sure that Trump will be better than any Dem.
PEACE 😇
And it will not do to say in this instance that "Nobody took Donald Trump seriously either, and look what happened." Analogizing on the basis of mere external trappings is the tone-deaf's way of doing history. There is no stare decisis in the field of ripening actuality; Bernie cannot lay claim to a Trump-like success just because he was once considered a Trump-like dark horse. After all, some losers lose for a reason. In their heart of hearts, people do want to be Donald Trump. It looks like it feels cool to be Trump, while being Bernie Sanders looks like it feels like a case of laryngitis. That is why Trump wins and Bernie doesn't.
Furthermore, Bernie gives no evidence that he is at all interested in foreign policy whatsoever. If he were president, he would simply let the Pentagon write its own rulebooks while he himself got summarily taken to the cleaners by every two-bit dictator and scoundrel under the four winds. People sense these things, and they aren't going to give the power to the cross between Jimmy Carter and Gilbert Gottfried.
Bernie is not going to make it in the real election. Giving away the store is a cheap and womanish way to buy popularity. But it only works if the real power decides to sit on its hands, which it won't.Replies: @Talha, @Daniel H
I wouldn’t want to be either, but I can totally see what you are saying here. I think this may well apply to most people in the country.
Aesthetics aside, he does have the old curmudgeon thing going for him; he basically told AIPAC “up yours” and that definitely takes some spine…more than what Trump has on that front.
Peace.
Nah, just Jewish Privilege. He may be secularized but he's still a Tribe member.
Has Bernie Sanders ever been a serial adulterer? And even if he has-- even if he currently is--, has boasted, very publicly and repeatedly, about such transgressions? Boasted, specifically, about bedding married women-- while married, with tender-aged children?Not that I mean to suggest that such personal behavior should be a primary criterion for choosing a candidate for public office. Sure, in an ideal world, only moral men would hold public office. In the world we live in, however,...
A man can be an exemplar of virtue in his personal life yet be a disaster of a public leader. And vice-versa.I like the defiance. In general, and specifically, in standing-up to AIPAC. This is refreshing. (Now if only Sanders would denounce...the Congressional Black Caucus, MSNBC, the DNC, and any number of prominent Democrats, including Barack Obama and Bill DeBlasio, for their extensive history of honoring and providing a platform for any number of bigots, including the infamous Al Sharpton and Louis Farrahkan...the "LGBTQx" lobby for promoting objectively unwholesome, dangerous, harmful behaviors and policies, and corrupting minors...)We all could do a lot worse than making it to 79 with the energy, drive, and mental faculties, that Bernie's been demonstrating. I'd say the same for looks too. Sure, Jeff Sessions may easily have Bernie beat in any looks contest. But does Bernie really look that bad for a man his age? It does seem indicative of vanity, ego and selfishness, though, to pursue the Presidency at that age, after suffering a heart attack. (And his declining to release his medical records can only invite suspicion as to what he may be trying to hide.) As for President Trump, if he were completely in with the Netanyahu-Neocon crowd, wouldn't we be at war with Iran by now?
If they are not rich people and not professional people and not people who work for wages then who are these low class people? How exactly do we know they are low class?
Are there people with no class? Why don’t we poll them?
Or are we not talking about class at all. Why do we use the word class when we are talking about income? I think it might be that Americans have no fucking idea what class distinctions are.
Peace.Replies: @anon, @Dissident
Aesthetics aside, he does have the old curmudgeon thing going for him; he basically told AIPAC “up yours” and that definitely takes some spine
Nah, just Jewish Privilege. He may be secularized but he’s still a Tribe member.
Trump should run ads showing Bernie saying that immigration is bad for America, followed by: “I’m Donald Trump, and I support this message.”
I think that will be especially effective if somebody like Bloomberg is the nominee. With the coronavirus and economic shut down in front of us, time is here for a 1924 like moratorium. That will not come from Trump, and his heart he is still a cheep labor type, the pressure will have to brought on him.
https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/9444fd6a-dae6-11e7-b1ee-b99a8c8beca7-780x578.jpg
Peace.Replies: @Talha, @Feryl
Apropos of nothing, you are one of my favorite posters on this site, notwithstanding the fact that I do not believe Abe Lincoln was a homosexual drug addict.
He wanted to make the blacks go be coal miners in Latin America...........this has always amused me. https://www.amren.com/news/2011/02/abraham_lincoln/
I have ancestors on both sides of the Civil War, though.
Take care. I eagerly await the White Core American Party.
Which side of the chart is Trump on?
Peace.
https://twitter.com/eldahshan/status/1232376917548032002
It's not just the distribution of wealth per se that matters, after all, even in the peak of equality (the 1950's and 60's) the top 1% still made a lot more money than other people. What really matters is the number of combatants for status, and the lengths they are willing to go. So for example, in the 1950's there weren't that many people in America, nor was there much willingness to fight hard to climb over other people. By contrast, America is now much more populous (inherently creating more demand for jobs, housing, parking spaces, and health care), plus there's now a much greater willingness to strive for the golden ring (e.g. there are now far more people going to college than there was in the 50's, plus modern elites are too busy fighting for more status to actually protect the less fortunate). So the average American, relative to the elite American, is doing far worse now than he was in the 1940's-1970's.
The last small generation was the Silent Generation (born from 1925-1944). Boomers were a massive generation. American Gen X (1965-1980) started off fairly big with the 1960's births, but there numbers declined a lot in the 1970's. However, the arrival of foreign born Boomers and X-ers ensured that America's population continued to grow in the 1970's. Millennials (1981-1995) were a huge generation because the Boomers had lots of kids in the late 80's and early 90's. America's population has soared, decade over decade, since the 1940's. In the 1940's-1960's, few adults joined the workforce (Boomers were too young, immigrants were denied entry), a major reason why living standards were so high for most Americans. It all changed in the 70's.
Corporate share holders and the elite benefit from unceasing population growth, however the increasing aggravation of the low-middle class eventually will rupture the ability of a country to get along, politically and socially. That's what's happening now, and this will eventually lead to some sort of blow-off (and die-off). An epidemic closing borders and thinning the populace, the rise of a no-nonsense regime and mindset that endorses eugenics, closed borders, and increased physical and moral hygiene ala the early 20th century Progressives, a protracted civil war that renders the country unattractive to immigrants, de-populates certain areas, (remember that immigration into America only really soared around 1900, well after the Civil War ugliness) and possibly causes the fragmentation of America into different states. I don't think an economic crisis alone causes change; after all, eugenics and closed borders were being advocated by many elites before the Great Depression that began in 1929. But an economic crisis can bolster the case for needed change.
that's a point i never see madeReplies: @Daniel H
If it’s cheaper for big corporations to outsource jobs overseas, then it’s cheaper to resettle refugees outside the U.S.
It’s not just big corporations who lust for cheap labor, it’s the “little guy” too. The type for whom the American Chamber of Commerce speaks for: hospitality, restaurants, landscaping, construction, etc….The “little guy”, petit bourgeois businessman, as the commies would call him, is a huge problem in this country. Privatize all profit, externalize all cost.
This may just be a problem with democracy in general. Future generations can't vote. Even the current generation can't reign in their desires for short term gratification and politicians can't resist the temptation to pander to those desires. The American experiment in self-government only worked for a couple hundred years.Replies: @iffen, @Feryl
And it will not do to say in this instance that "Nobody took Donald Trump seriously either, and look what happened." Analogizing on the basis of mere external trappings is the tone-deaf's way of doing history. There is no stare decisis in the field of ripening actuality; Bernie cannot lay claim to a Trump-like success just because he was once considered a Trump-like dark horse. After all, some losers lose for a reason. In their heart of hearts, people do want to be Donald Trump. It looks like it feels cool to be Trump, while being Bernie Sanders looks like it feels like a case of laryngitis. That is why Trump wins and Bernie doesn't.
Furthermore, Bernie gives no evidence that he is at all interested in foreign policy whatsoever. If he were president, he would simply let the Pentagon write its own rulebooks while he himself got summarily taken to the cleaners by every two-bit dictator and scoundrel under the four winds. People sense these things, and they aren't going to give the power to the cross between Jimmy Carter and Gilbert Gottfried.
Bernie is not going to make it in the real election. Giving away the store is a cheap and womanish way to buy popularity. But it only works if the real power decides to sit on its hands, which it won't.Replies: @Talha, @Daniel H
Bernie Sanders is not a serious candidate.
Well, who is the serious candidate then? The buffoon Trump? The clowns Biden and Woods? The faggot Bloomberg?
“Even if if you believe that Trump is not strong on these issues, remember the only other option in November will be a full-on Open Borders, Corporate Left Democrat.”
Grrrrr . . . . but that is not much of a legacy to bank on change. My candidate has no real intent on supporting the issues I voted for him to attend, but that failure or those failures are better than what the other guy has to offer.
Frankly, I expect a better performance from the current executive. In fact, I still believe he is capable of actually making changes that turn a corner, judgeships are fine, but hardly deep cote change needed.
Unfortunately he could have been a lot better, too.
When was he lying– then or now?
~ ~ ~
Re: Bernie denouncing AIPAC: Is he the first prominent Presidential candidate to do this?
Definitely now.
Re: Bernie denouncing AIPAC: Is he the first prominent Presidential candidate to do this?
This is just too sad. The establishment is going all hands on deck to sink Bernie. This will be a massive cue for the Jew-haters to say, "See, we told you who the puppet masters are!"Replies: @Dissident
https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/9444fd6a-dae6-11e7-b1ee-b99a8c8beca7-780x578.jpg
Peace.Replies: @Talha, @Feryl
I should though congratulate people in the US, they are hopefully waking up to the reality that many others have been living with for a while; your elites despise you, you just have to look a little closer:
https://twitter.com/eldahshan/status/1232376917548032002
Grrrrr . . . . but that is not much of a legacy to bank on change. My candidate has no real intent on supporting the issues I voted for him to attend, but that failure or those failures are better than what the other guy has to offer.
Frankly, I expect a better performance from the current executive. In fact, I still believe he is capable of actually making changes that turn a corner, judgeships are fine, but hardly deep cote change needed.Replies: @Mikey D.
My glass is still half full. Trump could have been a lot worse.
Unfortunately he could have been a lot better, too.
I also seem to recall that he won in Flint, which makes me wonder if he was successful, or perhaps, more likely Muslims don't really care, since they see him as part of an anti-white coalition, or are just naturally enamored by socialism, and the prospect of free gibs.
Though, it is perhaps true what some people say of him - that he is the least Zionist among the mainstream candidates.Replies: @Jay Fink
“Though, it is perhaps true what some people say of him – that he is the least Zionist among the mainstream candidates”
I think he is which is why I see my relatives on Facebook freaking out about him.
It's not just big corporations who lust for cheap labor, it's the "little guy" too. The type for whom the American Chamber of Commerce speaks for: hospitality, restaurants, landscaping, construction, etc....The "little guy", petit bourgeois businessman, as the commies would call him, is a huge problem in this country. Privatize all profit, externalize all cost.Replies: @Mark G.
This does seem to be the plan. Businesses get low wage workers but any additional welfare costs of the immigrants and their families are borne by the public in general. Eventually, though, these immigrants will become citizens (and their children born here automatically) and get the vote and then vote for income redistribution from rich to poor. This seems like maximizing short term profits instead of thinking long term on the part of these businessmen.
This may just be a problem with democracy in general. Future generations can’t vote. Even the current generation can’t reign in their desires for short term gratification and politicians can’t resist the temptation to pander to those desires. The American experiment in self-government only worked for a couple hundred years.
merican experiment in self-government only worked for a couple hundred years.C'mon. The fat lady has not sung. Granted, she's in the wing warming up.We wuz kangz! Every man could dream of being a kang. It's just a rough patch. We can do it again.Replies: @Mark G.
The Reaganites focused almost all of their anger on the poor, the criminals, the wannabe do-gooders, the government regulators, etc. They led the charge away from the Progressive norms of keeping everyone (including elites) on a tight leash to insure communal harmony and dignity. The Reaganites dispensed with moral and cultural norms (thus the introduction of state lotteries in the 80's, the massive increase in dangerous dog ownership in the 80's and ensuing failure to correct this excess, the growth in obesity that began in the 80's, the deepening of workaholic behavior, the beginning of women exceeding men in social status, more and more lawyers and dumb law suits, the borders being opened up further, and so on). The Reaganites never brought back the mental institutions that kept dangerous people off the streets in the Progressive and New Deal era. The Reaganites never brought back the closed borders of the Progressive and New Deal era. Reaganism was about restoring Gilded Age norms of cut-throat individualism, not about "family values" or whatever utter horse shit the gullible religious right was spewing at the time (newsflash: the Reaganite leadership are cultural libertines who begrudgingly pretended to care about social conservatives). And then there's the Reaganite's total capitulation to the New Left's racial and gender norms (not the New Deal Left's traditionalism), as is evidenced by the Reaganites doing not a damn thing to stop affirmative action, campus and corporate PC, and the most wrong-headed ideas promulgated by feminism (like the notion that women were better off seeking a career).
But the neo-lib era has never been about stability or tradition; rather it's about purging communal notions of restraint and loyalty.
~ ~ ~
Re: Bernie denouncing AIPAC: Is he the first prominent Presidential candidate to do this?Replies: @iffen
When was he lying– then or now?
Definitely now.
Re: Bernie denouncing AIPAC: Is he the first prominent Presidential candidate to do this?
This is just too sad. The establishment is going all hands on deck to sink Bernie. This will be a massive cue for the Jew-haters to say, “See, we told you who the puppet masters are!”
This may just be a problem with democracy in general. Future generations can't vote. Even the current generation can't reign in their desires for short term gratification and politicians can't resist the temptation to pander to those desires. The American experiment in self-government only worked for a couple hundred years.Replies: @iffen, @Feryl
The A
merican experiment in self-government only worked for a couple hundred years.
C’mon. The fat lady has not sung. Granted, she’s in the wing warming up.
We wuz kangz! Every man could dream of being a kang. It’s just a rough patch. We can do it again.
Even when the roads aren't bad they engage in extremely reckless driving that endangers others. I've had three or four close calls myself. I had a Hispanic guy almost run into me when he was speeding through a parking lot not paying attention. We both then walked into the same business where I was dumbfounded when he came up to me and confronted me about almost hitting him. I pointed out to him that neither one of us had a stop sign and I was the one who actually was paying attention and stopped and prevented the accident. He had his two kids on the front seat next to him wearing no seatbelts so I prevented them from getting injured too. There are more and more low IQ immigrants coming into this country every year and it will become increasingly unsafe in the future to live here.Replies: @Feryl, @iffen
merican experiment in self-government only worked for a couple hundred years.C'mon. The fat lady has not sung. Granted, she's in the wing warming up.We wuz kangz! Every man could dream of being a kang. It's just a rough patch. We can do it again.Replies: @Mark G.
What scares me the most about the future is the general issue of physical safety. For example, the Hispanic immigrants coming here to Indiana are extremely bad drivers. People born here who have lived here their whole lives understand that when there is ice on the road you need to slow down. The immigrants moving here don’t understand that and don’t seem to be intelligent enough to figure it out. My best friend just had a head on collision with a bunch of Mexican guys going around a curve too fast and who got out of their lane. He was lucky he wasn’t killed.
Even when the roads aren’t bad they engage in extremely reckless driving that endangers others. I’ve had three or four close calls myself. I had a Hispanic guy almost run into me when he was speeding through a parking lot not paying attention. We both then walked into the same business where I was dumbfounded when he came up to me and confronted me about almost hitting him. I pointed out to him that neither one of us had a stop sign and I was the one who actually was paying attention and stopped and prevented the accident. He had his two kids on the front seat next to him wearing no seatbelts so I prevented them from getting injured too. There are more and more low IQ immigrants coming into this country every year and it will become increasingly unsafe in the future to live here.
Keep in mind that the average white person is 48 years old; average age for other demos is much lower. So it's safe to say that in the 70's and 80's, a lot of young whites drove like morons and got hurt, killed, or arrested. In Bloomberg's NYC, all of the white guys who are 40, 50. and 60 years old aren't going to be causing much trouble. The (white) small towns and suburbs were a lot more dangerous in the 70's and 80's, for obvious reasons (lots of teen and twenty-something whites roaming around). Steve Pinker likes to use a crime graph that shows increasing improvements dating back to like 1800 or something. Then there's a massive crime spike from about 1965-1995, which essentially coincides with massive numbers of people (white and black) being born from 1945 to 1970, and reaching their peak age for committing crime in the late 60's-early 90's. But once the population began heavily aging in the late 90's, we resumed the trend towards greater public safety.
Simply banning people from full time driving until they reach the age of about 25 would make the roads much safer. Teenagers who don't work on farms would be forbidden from driving unless they had a licensed adult with them. People in their early 20's would be forbidden from driving in the evening or in the early morning, unless their job or school obligations took place in the evening or in the early morning.
I do think the evidence is overwhelming that heavily regulating the behavior of teens and very young adults would be beneficial. Not just driving, but drinking alcohol, possession of weapons, etc. We know from brain chemistry and established patterns of behavior that those under the age of about 25 can't be trusted. Period.Replies: @Corvinus
In spite of what AE says, the Republican political class and their funders are all in for open borders. It is a question of whether Trump or Sanders would be more likely to veto open borders legislation.Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone
Yep.
Charles,
Apropos of nothing, you are one of my favorite posters on this site, notwithstanding the fact that I do not believe Abe Lincoln was a homosexual drug addict.
He wanted to make the blacks go be coal miners in Latin America………..this has always amused me. https://www.amren.com/news/2011/02/abraham_lincoln/
I have ancestors on both sides of the Civil War, though.
Take care. I eagerly await the White Core American Party.
“If Trump doesn’t run an ad with that quote cut against Sanders endorsing free healthcare for illegals, his comms team will have been woefully negligent.”
We’re WAY past woefully negligent here. Think “perpetually hapless”. But don’t worry, Trump has matters under control.
I mean, he was in India saying the coronavirus is a problem that’ll “go away,” and that (checks notes) the main thing of importance is the stock market drop is not his fault.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/484561-kudlow-claims-coronavirus-has-been-contained-its-pretty-close-to-air?__twitter_impression=true
I suppose that any top U.S. health official who offers a starkly different assessment is just peddling Fake News, right?
“My glass is still half full. Trump could have been a lot worse.
Unfortunately he could have been a lot better, too.”
laughing . . . I guess there is something to having it both ways.
I generally agree with your sentiments.
There has to be some way to integrate the WWE with Presidential Debates.
It’s for us, America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkghtyxZ6rcReplies: @Audacious Epigone
Peace.
It's for us, America.Replies: @anon, @Talha
There has to be some way to integrate the WWE with Presidential Debates.
America is such a weird, weird place. It's really too bad we're losing our weirdness.
https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/9444fd6a-dae6-11e7-b1ee-b99a8c8beca7-780x578.jpg
Peace.Replies: @Talha, @Feryl
“They” are obfuscating the fact that the most bitter competition in America occurs within and near the top 20%. So the big (but not biggest) winners can conveniently place the blame on “the 1%” for our problems. In reality, too many people in the top 20% want to be in the 1%, while many people in the bottom 80% want to be in the top 20%.
It’s not just the distribution of wealth per se that matters, after all, even in the peak of equality (the 1950’s and 60’s) the top 1% still made a lot more money than other people. What really matters is the number of combatants for status, and the lengths they are willing to go. So for example, in the 1950’s there weren’t that many people in America, nor was there much willingness to fight hard to climb over other people. By contrast, America is now much more populous (inherently creating more demand for jobs, housing, parking spaces, and health care), plus there’s now a much greater willingness to strive for the golden ring (e.g. there are now far more people going to college than there was in the 50’s, plus modern elites are too busy fighting for more status to actually protect the less fortunate). So the average American, relative to the elite American, is doing far worse now than he was in the 1940’s-1970’s.
The last small generation was the Silent Generation (born from 1925-1944). Boomers were a massive generation. American Gen X (1965-1980) started off fairly big with the 1960’s births, but there numbers declined a lot in the 1970’s. However, the arrival of foreign born Boomers and X-ers ensured that America’s population continued to grow in the 1970’s. Millennials (1981-1995) were a huge generation because the Boomers had lots of kids in the late 80’s and early 90’s. America’s population has soared, decade over decade, since the 1940’s. In the 1940’s-1960’s, few adults joined the workforce (Boomers were too young, immigrants were denied entry), a major reason why living standards were so high for most Americans. It all changed in the 70’s.
Corporate share holders and the elite benefit from unceasing population growth, however the increasing aggravation of the low-middle class eventually will rupture the ability of a country to get along, politically and socially. That’s what’s happening now, and this will eventually lead to some sort of blow-off (and die-off). An epidemic closing borders and thinning the populace, the rise of a no-nonsense regime and mindset that endorses eugenics, closed borders, and increased physical and moral hygiene ala the early 20th century Progressives, a protracted civil war that renders the country unattractive to immigrants, de-populates certain areas, (remember that immigration into America only really soared around 1900, well after the Civil War ugliness) and possibly causes the fragmentation of America into different states. I don’t think an economic crisis alone causes change; after all, eugenics and closed borders were being advocated by many elites before the Great Depression that began in 1929. But an economic crisis can bolster the case for needed change.
Even when the roads aren't bad they engage in extremely reckless driving that endangers others. I've had three or four close calls myself. I had a Hispanic guy almost run into me when he was speeding through a parking lot not paying attention. We both then walked into the same business where I was dumbfounded when he came up to me and confronted me about almost hitting him. I pointed out to him that neither one of us had a stop sign and I was the one who actually was paying attention and stopped and prevented the accident. He had his two kids on the front seat next to him wearing no seatbelts so I prevented them from getting injured too. There are more and more low IQ immigrants coming into this country every year and it will become increasingly unsafe in the future to live here.Replies: @Feryl, @iffen
A lot of blacks are too poor to drive in the first place, + they’re clustered in urban areas in which walking and mass transit are realistic options for getting around. But if blacks had more money…..It would be a demolition derby out on the roads.
Keep in mind that the average white person is 48 years old; average age for other demos is much lower. So it’s safe to say that in the 70’s and 80’s, a lot of young whites drove like morons and got hurt, killed, or arrested. In Bloomberg’s NYC, all of the white guys who are 40, 50. and 60 years old aren’t going to be causing much trouble. The (white) small towns and suburbs were a lot more dangerous in the 70’s and 80’s, for obvious reasons (lots of teen and twenty-something whites roaming around). Steve Pinker likes to use a crime graph that shows increasing improvements dating back to like 1800 or something. Then there’s a massive crime spike from about 1965-1995, which essentially coincides with massive numbers of people (white and black) being born from 1945 to 1970, and reaching their peak age for committing crime in the late 60’s-early 90’s. But once the population began heavily aging in the late 90’s, we resumed the trend towards greater public safety.
Simply banning people from full time driving until they reach the age of about 25 would make the roads much safer. Teenagers who don’t work on farms would be forbidden from driving unless they had a licensed adult with them. People in their early 20’s would be forbidden from driving in the evening or in the early morning, unless their job or school obligations took place in the evening or in the early morning.
I do think the evidence is overwhelming that heavily regulating the behavior of teens and very young adults would be beneficial. Not just driving, but drinking alcohol, possession of weapons, etc. We know from brain chemistry and established patterns of behavior that those under the age of about 25 can’t be trusted. Period.
This may just be a problem with democracy in general. Future generations can't vote. Even the current generation can't reign in their desires for short term gratification and politicians can't resist the temptation to pander to those desires. The American experiment in self-government only worked for a couple hundred years.Replies: @iffen, @Feryl
It’s all cyclical; everything falls apart, several generations work hard to put it back together, then several subsequent generations smash it up again. However, sometimes the damage is so great that lasting ethnic and political differences result. Up to and including the total dissolution of what once characterized a country or tribe, socially, politically, and demographically.
The Reaganites focused almost all of their anger on the poor, the criminals, the wannabe do-gooders, the government regulators, etc. They led the charge away from the Progressive norms of keeping everyone (including elites) on a tight leash to insure communal harmony and dignity. The Reaganites dispensed with moral and cultural norms (thus the introduction of state lotteries in the 80’s, the massive increase in dangerous dog ownership in the 80’s and ensuing failure to correct this excess, the growth in obesity that began in the 80’s, the deepening of workaholic behavior, the beginning of women exceeding men in social status, more and more lawyers and dumb law suits, the borders being opened up further, and so on). The Reaganites never brought back the mental institutions that kept dangerous people off the streets in the Progressive and New Deal era. The Reaganites never brought back the closed borders of the Progressive and New Deal era. Reaganism was about restoring Gilded Age norms of cut-throat individualism, not about “family values” or whatever utter horse shit the gullible religious right was spewing at the time (newsflash: the Reaganite leadership are cultural libertines who begrudgingly pretended to care about social conservatives). And then there’s the Reaganite’s total capitulation to the New Left’s racial and gender norms (not the New Deal Left’s traditionalism), as is evidenced by the Reaganites doing not a damn thing to stop affirmative action, campus and corporate PC, and the most wrong-headed ideas promulgated by feminism (like the notion that women were better off seeking a career).
But the neo-lib era has never been about stability or tradition; rather it’s about purging communal notions of restraint and loyalty.
It's for us, America.Replies: @anon, @Talha
I don’t want to see those guys in their chuddies.
Peace.
Definitely now.
Re: Bernie denouncing AIPAC: Is he the first prominent Presidential candidate to do this?
This is just too sad. The establishment is going all hands on deck to sink Bernie. This will be a massive cue for the Jew-haters to say, "See, we told you who the puppet masters are!"Replies: @Dissident
So you think that if Sanders gets the nomination, he will move toward a more restrictionist position on immigration?
I’ve been so conflicted. The more it appears as if the establishment opposes Bernie, the more it reflexively pushes me toward rooting for him. But then every time I witness him champion some form of woke insanity, or be embraced by any number of odious entities, etc., it jolts me away from him.
And I fear any Jew becoming President. I suspect you can guess why.
I think that at his core he is aware that open borders is very bad for the working class and our country and he would try to help us before helping the immigrants. That said, he is a hard core social democrat and believes in the workers of the world unite thingy. But, I believe that he can see that nationalism is on the rise, democracy is failing, and it is time to temporarily retreat from actively pursuing the one world ideal.
The question is whether the numbers of immigration patriots (I hate having to use VDare language) in the Congress will be able to fight off open borders. I think that it would be easier for them to win if they were fighting Bernie unstead of Trump. Plus, Trump is just opportunistic with respect to immigration as opposed to Bernie's core beliefs. In sum, we would get a better immigration bill with Bernie as President instead of Trump, and at the same time the chances of the immigration patriots blocking it would be higher with Bernie.
And I fear any Jew becoming President. I suspect you can guess why.
Those Israelis don't shy away from assassination, that's for sure. That's the only problem I see in that area.Replies: @Dissident, @Audacious Epigone
We all know the ship is sinking. It would be a *ahem* bad look if it slipped beneath the service while be captained for the first time by a Jew, a woman, etc.
Peace.Replies: @anon, @Dissident
Comparing the two men strictly on the basis of their respective personal behavior, though…
Has Bernie Sanders ever been a serial adulterer? And even if he has– even if he currently is–, has boasted, very publicly and repeatedly, about such transgressions? Boasted, specifically, about bedding married women– while married, with tender-aged children?
Not that I mean to suggest that such personal behavior should be a primary criterion for choosing a candidate for public office. Sure, in an ideal world, only moral men would hold public office. In the world we live in, however,…
A man can be an exemplar of virtue in his personal life yet be a disaster of a public leader. And vice-versa.
I like the defiance. In general, and specifically, in standing-up to AIPAC. This is refreshing.
(Now if only Sanders would denounce…the Congressional Black Caucus, MSNBC, the DNC, and any number of prominent Democrats, including Barack Obama and Bill DeBlasio, for their extensive history of honoring and providing a platform for any number of bigots, including the infamous Al Sharpton and Louis Farrahkan…the “LGBTQx” lobby for promoting objectively unwholesome, dangerous, harmful behaviors and policies, and corrupting minors…)
We all could do a lot worse than making it to 79 with the energy, drive, and mental faculties, that Bernie’s been demonstrating. I’d say the same for looks too. Sure, Jeff Sessions may easily have Bernie beat in any looks contest. But does Bernie really look that bad for a man his age? It does seem indicative of vanity, ego and selfishness, though, to pursue the Presidency at that age, after suffering a heart attack. (And his declining to release his medical records can only invite suspicion as to what he may be trying to hide.)
As for President Trump, if he were completely in with the Netanyahu-Neocon crowd, wouldn’t we be at war with Iran by now?
There is a reason, after all, for the origin of the word "parasite":Replies: @SFG
It’s pretty explainable by genes for sociopathic behavior, which have been known for a while to be advantageous (for the organism) if they’re not too frequent. Too many shysters and people start to crack down.
It can be advantageous for the leader, and more so for us, to have loyalty to his followers when needed, but also be ruthless in cutting them loose when they are no longer functional. A leader, such as the President, needs to understand that it is very unlikely that all of the people that contributed to his “getting there” will not be the same people who can help him govern effectively. Loyalty is great for a band of brothers, but a leader needs to cull the ineffective without mercy and bring in the most competent people he can find, regardless. Trump understands this, but the technocratic political class is almost completely populated by the Borg’s handmaids and he has difficulty finding competent people who will carry out his policies (and help him formulate good ones).
To be honest I'm not sure that competence is all-important. Fanatically loyal followers can be more useful than competent ones. A leader with a reputation for disloyalty to his followers will soon find himself with no loyal followers. That seems to be Trump's problem. He has fanatically loyal supporters out there in the country but how many loyal supporters does he have in his inner circle, or his Cabinet, or the bureaucracy, or even the courts?Replies: @Corvinus
Even when the roads aren't bad they engage in extremely reckless driving that endangers others. I've had three or four close calls myself. I had a Hispanic guy almost run into me when he was speeding through a parking lot not paying attention. We both then walked into the same business where I was dumbfounded when he came up to me and confronted me about almost hitting him. I pointed out to him that neither one of us had a stop sign and I was the one who actually was paying attention and stopped and prevented the accident. He had his two kids on the front seat next to him wearing no seatbelts so I prevented them from getting injured too. There are more and more low IQ immigrants coming into this country every year and it will become increasingly unsafe in the future to live here.Replies: @Feryl, @iffen
I want to say that maybe self-driving cars will help us, but we can’t even make planes that will stay in the sky so maybe we just need to live online.
So you think that if Sanders gets the nomination, he will move toward a more restrictionist position on immigration?
I think that at his core he is aware that open borders is very bad for the working class and our country and he would try to help us before helping the immigrants. That said, he is a hard core social democrat and believes in the workers of the world unite thingy. But, I believe that he can see that nationalism is on the rise, democracy is failing, and it is time to temporarily retreat from actively pursuing the one world ideal.
The question is whether the numbers of immigration patriots (I hate having to use VDare language) in the Congress will be able to fight off open borders. I think that it would be easier for them to win if they were fighting Bernie unstead of Trump. Plus, Trump is just opportunistic with respect to immigration as opposed to Bernie’s core beliefs. In sum, we would get a better immigration bill with Bernie as President instead of Trump, and at the same time the chances of the immigration patriots blocking it would be higher with Bernie.
And I fear any Jew becoming President. I suspect you can guess why.
Those Israelis don’t shy away from assassination, that’s for sure. That’s the only problem I see in that area.
Incidentally, a question to you and everyone else here: would you consider individuals such as Glenn Greenwald or Jeremy Scahill (who Greenwald has often collaborated with) for inclusion on a hypothetical foreign policy dream team?
~ ~ ~
My fear of any Jew becoming President is that any dissatisfaction with or disapproval of him among the populace would lead to increased animosity and hostility toward Jews at large. On the other hand, as you point-out, if the perception is that Jews are behind the shafting of a popular, well-liked candidate...
Another consideration that I find germane here is how increasingly vilified and under attack the normal White folk who are the founding stock of this country have become. Given this reality, it seems that it would be healthiest for one of them, ideally a White man married to a woman, to hold the Presidency. Of course, any such considerations should be vastly outweighed by ones of policy and competence.Replies: @iffen
Sanders is 78 years old. He had a heart attack about 4 months ago. If he gets nominated, it’s likely his VP will serve out the Presidential term.
Bloomberg is also 78 years old, and has had a cardiac stent in place for some years, although apparently he’s still rated by the FAA to fly something. However if he gets the nomination, the VP will also matter.
Just pointing out the obvious.
So far the D’s caucus / primary season has reminded me of a used car lot sales press. “D’ya like the Old Jewish Commie? How about the young CIA Manchurian Gay? Maybe the Wall Street billionaire?” Kind of obvious that the MSM and others are rotating new faves by D’s to see which one catches the most waves.
Keep in mind that the average white person is 48 years old; average age for other demos is much lower. So it's safe to say that in the 70's and 80's, a lot of young whites drove like morons and got hurt, killed, or arrested. In Bloomberg's NYC, all of the white guys who are 40, 50. and 60 years old aren't going to be causing much trouble. The (white) small towns and suburbs were a lot more dangerous in the 70's and 80's, for obvious reasons (lots of teen and twenty-something whites roaming around). Steve Pinker likes to use a crime graph that shows increasing improvements dating back to like 1800 or something. Then there's a massive crime spike from about 1965-1995, which essentially coincides with massive numbers of people (white and black) being born from 1945 to 1970, and reaching their peak age for committing crime in the late 60's-early 90's. But once the population began heavily aging in the late 90's, we resumed the trend towards greater public safety.
Simply banning people from full time driving until they reach the age of about 25 would make the roads much safer. Teenagers who don't work on farms would be forbidden from driving unless they had a licensed adult with them. People in their early 20's would be forbidden from driving in the evening or in the early morning, unless their job or school obligations took place in the evening or in the early morning.
I do think the evidence is overwhelming that heavily regulating the behavior of teens and very young adults would be beneficial. Not just driving, but drinking alcohol, possession of weapons, etc. We know from brain chemistry and established patterns of behavior that those under the age of about 25 can't be trusted. Period.Replies: @Corvinus
“Simply banning people from full time driving until they reach the age of about 25 would make the roads much safer…Teenagers who don’t work on farms would be forbidden from driving unless they had a licensed adult with them.”
You’re not known around these parts for concern trolling. Very odd for you to make these ivory tower pronouncements knowing full well they will NEVER be implemented on a large-scale.
“We know from brain chemistry and established patterns of behavior that those under the age of about 25 can’t be trusted. Period.”
We know that individuals can be trusted based on their levels of trustworthiness and maturity. Period.
That’s true up to a point. Bringing in the most competent people even if they’re political enemies is however a huge mistake.
To be honest I’m not sure that competence is all-important. Fanatically loyal followers can be more useful than competent ones. A leader with a reputation for disloyalty to his followers will soon find himself with no loyal followers. That seems to be Trump’s problem. He has fanatically loyal supporters out there in the country but how many loyal supporters does he have in his inner circle, or his Cabinet, or the bureaucracy, or even the courts?
Right. Because they will take orders without question. But what does it matter if those loyal followers make matters worse without necessarily questioning or challenging what they are being demanded to do.
"He has fanatically loyal supporters out there in the country but how many loyal supporters does he have in his inner circle, or his Cabinet, or the bureaucracy, or even the courts?"
It's called a check. You really are not of the mindset that Trump is competent, right?
Cheers.Replies: @Twinkie
It will last longer than those of publicly-traded companies as Koch Industries is privately-owned. Odd little trivia: a minority share of the company once belonged to an elderly man who married Anna Nicole Smith, who I believe was a Playboy Playmate. They were only married briefly (until his death) and she did not inherit his shares.
I think that at his core he is aware that open borders is very bad for the working class and our country and he would try to help us before helping the immigrants. That said, he is a hard core social democrat and believes in the workers of the world unite thingy. But, I believe that he can see that nationalism is on the rise, democracy is failing, and it is time to temporarily retreat from actively pursuing the one world ideal.
The question is whether the numbers of immigration patriots (I hate having to use VDare language) in the Congress will be able to fight off open borders. I think that it would be easier for them to win if they were fighting Bernie unstead of Trump. Plus, Trump is just opportunistic with respect to immigration as opposed to Bernie's core beliefs. In sum, we would get a better immigration bill with Bernie as President instead of Trump, and at the same time the chances of the immigration patriots blocking it would be higher with Bernie.
And I fear any Jew becoming President. I suspect you can guess why.
Those Israelis don't shy away from assassination, that's for sure. That's the only problem I see in that area.Replies: @Dissident, @Audacious Epigone
Interesting thinking. It sounds remarkably like what I recall from Glenn Greenwald when he contended that Barack Obama actually posed more of a threat to progressive policies such as Social Security and Medicare than did Mitt Romney. Greenwald’s basic argument, as I recall it, was that as President, Obama would not be subject to anywhere near the kind of scrutiny and opposition from the Democrats that Romney most certainly would.
Incidentally, a question to you and everyone else here: would you consider individuals such as Glenn Greenwald or Jeremy Scahill (who Greenwald has often collaborated with) for inclusion on a hypothetical foreign policy dream team?
~ ~ ~
My fear of any Jew becoming President is that any dissatisfaction with or disapproval of him among the populace would lead to increased animosity and hostility toward Jews at large. On the other hand, as you point-out, if the perception is that Jews are behind the shafting of a popular, well-liked candidate…
Another consideration that I find germane here is how increasingly vilified and under attack the normal White folk who are the founding stock of this country have become. Given this reality, it seems that it would be healthiest for one of them, ideally a White man married to a woman, to hold the Presidency. Of course, any such considerations should be vastly outweighed by ones of policy and competence.
The logic of this is an argument against Jewish engagement in society at large--journalism, politics, academia, culture.
Incidentally, a question to you and everyone else here: would you consider individuals such as Glenn Greenwald or Jeremy Scahill (who Greenwald has often collaborated with) for inclusion on a hypothetical foreign policy dream team?
~ ~ ~
My fear of any Jew becoming President is that any dissatisfaction with or disapproval of him among the populace would lead to increased animosity and hostility toward Jews at large. On the other hand, as you point-out, if the perception is that Jews are behind the shafting of a popular, well-liked candidate...
Another consideration that I find germane here is how increasingly vilified and under attack the normal White folk who are the founding stock of this country have become. Given this reality, it seems that it would be healthiest for one of them, ideally a White man married to a woman, to hold the Presidency. Of course, any such considerations should be vastly outweighed by ones of policy and competence.Replies: @iffen
My fear of any Jew becoming President is that any dissatisfaction with or disapproval of him among the populace would lead to increased animosity and hostility toward Jews at large.
The logic of this is an argument against Jewish engagement in society at large–journalism, politics, academia, culture.
To be honest I'm not sure that competence is all-important. Fanatically loyal followers can be more useful than competent ones. A leader with a reputation for disloyalty to his followers will soon find himself with no loyal followers. That seems to be Trump's problem. He has fanatically loyal supporters out there in the country but how many loyal supporters does he have in his inner circle, or his Cabinet, or the bureaucracy, or even the courts?Replies: @Corvinus
“To be honest I’m not sure that competence is all-important. Fanatically loyal followers can be more useful than competent ones.”
Right. Because they will take orders without question. But what does it matter if those loyal followers make matters worse without necessarily questioning or challenging what they are being demanded to do.
“He has fanatically loyal supporters out there in the country but how many loyal supporters does he have in his inner circle, or his Cabinet, or the bureaucracy, or even the courts?”
It’s called a check. You really are not of the mindset that Trump is competent, right?
However, a left-wing coalition these days involves supporting unrestricted immigration, because the leadership of the party wants more nonwhite people who will likely wind up voting Democrat. His core issue is economic inequality (he's made this clear since 1972), so he'll gladly flip-flop on a second-tier (to him) issue like immigration.
So, while a President Sanders might be more willing to compromise on immigration than a President Warren or Buttigieg, you should still vote for Trump, because his base wants less immigration, and Bernie's wants more.Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone
His core issue is economic inequality (he’s made this clear since 1972), so he’ll gladly flip-flop on a second-tier (to him) issue like immigration.
Liberty, equality, or diversity: Choose one.
In spite of what AE says, the Republican political class and their funders are all in for open borders. It is a question of whether Trump or Sanders would be more likely to veto open borders legislation.Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone
Most of them are, but not all. Among Democrats, they all are, without exception.
Indeed. If Sanders is not the nominee, Trump should absolutely do that.
Well, who is the serious candidate then? The buffoon Trump? The clowns Biden and Woods? The faggot Bloomberg?Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Bloomberg is emphatically not homosexual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkghtyxZ6rcReplies: @Audacious Epigone
LOL at the Israel flag in the crowd at 29/30 seconds in.
America is such a weird, weird place. It’s really too bad we’re losing our weirdness.
I fear any Jew becoming President. I suspect you can guess why.
We all know the ship is sinking. It would be a *ahem* bad look if it slipped beneath the service while be captained for the first time by a Jew, a woman, etc.
I think that at his core he is aware that open borders is very bad for the working class and our country and he would try to help us before helping the immigrants. That said, he is a hard core social democrat and believes in the workers of the world unite thingy. But, I believe that he can see that nationalism is on the rise, democracy is failing, and it is time to temporarily retreat from actively pursuing the one world ideal.
The question is whether the numbers of immigration patriots (I hate having to use VDare language) in the Congress will be able to fight off open borders. I think that it would be easier for them to win if they were fighting Bernie unstead of Trump. Plus, Trump is just opportunistic with respect to immigration as opposed to Bernie's core beliefs. In sum, we would get a better immigration bill with Bernie as President instead of Trump, and at the same time the chances of the immigration patriots blocking it would be higher with Bernie.
And I fear any Jew becoming President. I suspect you can guess why.
Those Israelis don't shy away from assassination, that's for sure. That's the only problem I see in that area.Replies: @Dissident, @Audacious Epigone
If Sanders even feigned to step back on immigration, his squad caucus would turn on him in a heartbeat. He will go to his grave never getting a step closer to where he was four years ago than he is today.
Even if not, what about the judges and Supreme Court justices that Bernie and/or his VP would appoint?