Patterico's Pontifications

3/1/2016

Trump Aims to Win South With Appeals to Racist Whites

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:41 am

Des Moines Register:

About 30 black students who were standing silently at the top of the bleachers at Donald Trump’s rally here Monday night were escorted out by security officials before the presidential candidate began speaking.

The sight of the students, who were visibly upset, being led outside by law enforcement officials created a stir at a university that was a whites-only campus until 1963.

“We didn’t plan to do anything,” said a tearful Tahjila Davis, a 19-year-old mass media major, who was among the Valdosta State University students who was removed. “They said, ‘This is Trump’s property; it’s a private event.’ But I paid my tuition to be here.”

Trump’s campaign denies being behind this. And yet:

Video of a tearful woman asked to leave:

This is the image Donald Trump wants for today.

My conclusion is that Donald Trump has a New York Democrat’s view of what the Republican party is. And in the South, he thinks it’s made up of a bunch of racists. So he makes a series of calculated moves. He refuses to disavow David Duke on a prominent Sunday show — and sandwiches that refusal between two less prominent disavowals that his chump defenders can point to. He creates the incident described above by having these black folks tossed out of his rally, but has his campaign issue a statement that he’s not behind it so that the suckers who support him can pretend he didn’t do it.

It’s all part of a very calculated strategy, I believe, of appealing to Southern white racists. I don’t believe there are as many of them as Donald Trump evidently believes. But then, I never would have thought that Trump appeared to be poised to sweep every state today except Texas.

P.S. In fascist Italy, one would have looked upon this image of a photographer being brutalized by a government security person, and been unfazed:

This video appears to show the lead-up to it: Contempt of Cop. This needs to stop before the jackboots start imposing similar punishments for Contempt of Trump.

UPDATE: JVW points to possible provocation by the photographer. That could be. I should know better than to make a snap judgment based on a video. Let’s see how this shakes out

197 Responses to “Trump Aims to Win South With Appeals to Racist Whites”

  1. I just had a thought that has absolutely nothing to do with this Presidential election.

    I wonder if the intellectuals in 1930s Europe were careful not to criticize the up-and-coming Nazi and fascist leaders too harshly, lest their criticisms sound extreme and overwrought.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  2. Cruz is the only vote against establishment and for the people.

    Donald says he is against establishment only to gather votes. Donald will go along to get along. W
    Trump will be no different than BO. The people will lose again!

    jrt for Cruz (bc7456)

  3. To Donald and the Trumpsters the ends justify the means.

    crazy (cde091)

  4. Kool-aid drinker Ropelight and liar extraordinaire Papertiger will be over here shortly, poo-pooing the whole thing as they bow down to Moloch.

    John Hitchcock (f3ad73)

  5. This whole thing happened very quickly and it’s hard to make it out on the video, but the teaser photo on this video seems to show the reporter with his hand on the Secret Service agent’s throat. That being the case, I don’t blame the SS guy one bit for choke-slamming the reporter down to the carpet. The video at the link shows the reporter highly agitated and appearing to make a menacing move towards the SS agent. Maybe the SS guy was in the wrong for trying to push the reporter away from the fray, but then again the reporter is a white guy with white guy privilege and the SS agent is a person of color. Am I missing something?

    JVW (9e3c77)

  6. re: 1930’s Europe and fascist Italy:

    Gawker (I know) created a troll twitter account, #ilduce2016, to tweet Benito Mussolini quotes to Trump, and he finally re-tweeted one last week. Good times.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  7. Il Douche 2016

    Leviticus (efada1)

  8. I agree with your post, Patterico. One of the problems with multiple parties and lots of candidates within a primary is how folks with <50% can dominate.

    Like Europe in the 30s.

    I hope you and I are wrong about this.

    Interesting to note that the SS (ha?) isn't so good at staying away from drugs and hookers, or even keeping street people out of the White House. But they have mad skillz taking down photographers.

    Simon Jester (2708f4)

  9. Why does the badgerhead have SS protection? I thought the nominees got it after the conventions.

    nk (dbc370)

  10. I think the demands that Trump disavow people, and the accusations of racism and fascism, help him rather than hurt him. We’re all tired of it, we know it’s only used to shut down discussion, and now it’s been so played out that it can’t even be effectively used on anyone who might actually be a real racist or a fascist.

    It’s like defining down of “rape” to drunk sex and the defining down of “genocide” to gentrification. These don’t make drunk sex and gentrification important issues, rather they reduce rape and genocide to triviality.

    The Gawker trolling is a perfect example. It’s exactly what Charles Johnson did when he accused anyone who quotes “Invictus” of agreeing with Timothy McVeigh. Which would make Nelson Mandela a McVeigh sympathizer. That quote didn’t originate with Mussolini; he was quoting someone else, and no doubt and Hitler quoted Shakespeare from time to time. Liking a quote is pretty banal.

    Mussolini’s theories of government and society, however, are very like Hillary Clinton’s and Bernie Sanders’s. Trump, being a crony capitalist, would no doubt be comfortable under such a system; but that he tweeted a banal quote which was purposely intended (sloppily) to troll him, doesn’t have anything to do with it.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  11. The reasons for the scuffle between the secret service agent and the photographer are not clear from the videos I have seen. What is undisputed is that, at some point, the photographer had his hand on the throat of the secret service agent. It is hard for me to imagine a world in which that does not result in a serious thumping at the hands of the affected law enforcement officer.

    orcadrvr (41c165)

  12. One could say that being able to play off of the stereotype of racist white repubs is exactly what a dem strategist would love to see…

    Which would be consistent with the idea of Trump being in collusion with the Clintons.
    I am not convinced that is the case, but I see it as plausible.
    And if it is not the case, truth may be even stranger.

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  13. JVW,

    Maybe. I should know better than to make a snap judgment based on a video.

    Patterico (472d53)

  14. No BLM signs ready to be unfurled? Standing silent until the Trumpster started to speak? Driven to tears, bad optics for Trump, nonetheless.

    Colonel Haiku (c06b23)

  15. on the one hand republican primary voters are notoriously racist

    but on the other hand Mr. Trump has done a lot more than the average R candidate to widen the tent and appeal to people of all different races and people in different kinds of income brackets and with very different fashion senses (as long as they want to make america great again)

    so i do not think you can conclude that he’s trying to strategically do racism on people

    i think you’re just mad cause harvardtrash ted is a loser

    happyfeet (831175)

  16. @the Colonel:bad optics for Trump, nonetheless.

    Not sure “bad optics” applies to a funhouse mirror.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  17. UPDATE: JVW points to possible provocation by the photographer. That could be. I should know better than to make a snap judgment based on a video. Let’s see how this shakes out

    Patterico (472d53)

  18. on the one hand republican primary voters are notoriously racist
    happyfeet (831175) — 3/1/2016 @ 8:27 am

    that’s the kind of trash I would expect of a leftist troller

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  19. if you folks ‘jumping to conclusions’ you’re going to get shin splits, more jumpy than calaveras frogs, everything the media presents is through their filter, sans context,

    narciso (732bc0)

  20. Mr. Philly if R voters were not notoriously racist there would be no way to credibly posit that Mr. Trump is conspiring to take advantage of the situation

    it’s the unavoidable inference from the assertion what is underlying this post

    this is obvious to anyone who is willing to do the analysis

    happyfeet (831175)

  21. Only the ones who support Trump. And who like it when Planned Parenthood chops up black babies and sells the parts.

    nk (dbc370)

  22. Translation: happyfeet was being sarcastic, MD.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  23. It’s wonderful work by Planned Parenthood. (This is sarcasm, Leviticus.)

    nk (dbc370)

  24. narciso,
    Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Syndrome is strong on the dark side

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  25. Translation:
    accusations of racism are not funny, Leviticus

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  26. no they are not Mr. Dr. and these accusations of racism against Mr. Trump are certainly not funny

    it’s a disturbing pattern, what the establishment Rs are trying to do on Mr. Trump

    remember they did the same thing to Milton Wolf

    happyfeet (831175)

  27. MD: Then direct your ire at Patterico (or me, for that matter). Not happyfeet.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  28. happyfeet is not a Trump supporter. What he is is anti-Cruz. And anti-Rubio. And anti-Carson. I don’t know how he feels about Kasich, but few people bother to feel anything about Kasich.

    nk (dbc370)

  29. well Ahians I know are split on the mailman’s son, some like him, some feel cold fury,

    narciso (732bc0)

  30. Trump jumped the gun on that one. The woman saying that they were just dressed in black to make a statement–yeah, right. Unfortunately an innocent girl got caught up in it and she’s right to feel humiliated.

    I sure hope you’re wrong, Patterico, that he’s using going for the racist vote. That’s just ugly, and I would vote for Hillary instead.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  31. but the m.o, against mcdaniels, wolf, et al, are remarkably consistent,

    there are some parallels with the way reagan dealt with the wave of student protests in the 60s, both prior to, and after his election as governor,

    narciso (732bc0)

  32. Patterico included in his original post:
    Donald Trump has a New York Democrat’s view of what the Republican party is. And in the South, he thinks it’s made up of a bunch of racists.
    It’s all part of a very calculated strategy, I believe, of appealing to Southern white racists. I don’t believe there are as many of them as Donald Trump evidently believes.

    Patterico acknowledged Trump’s apparent strategy, and assumed it was based on a faulty premise.
    hf thought it was funny to play up the premise.
    I don’t.
    Time to do other things.

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  33. Mr. nk no i’m not wild about Trump’s policies – but most of the more idiotic ones are things he’d need to get through congress

    but what I like… is he’s an unmistakably American figure – brash and colorful, and I think he means well

    and I think he’s an affront to the ruling class that’s done such grievous harm to this once proud little country

    I think as president he’ll genuinely try to produce results what are measurable and real

    not climate change treaties and silly regulations and exotic new agencies and such

    I think he’ll really try

    that’s so much better than what food stamp’s done or what the nasty incontinent old woman will do

    and if the establishment Rs want to work with him on some of the stuff they want to do – yay

    but theirs is a curious strategy

    happyfeet (831175)

  34. What he is is anti-Cruz. And anti-Rubio. And anti-Carson.

    yes yes i should own this too

    and i do

    happyfeet (831175)

  35. Time to do other things.

    Mr. Philly I’m not being funny goodness gracious no no no

    How I read this post is that

    as today goes on and Mr. Trump he makes his stand

    away down south in dixie

    and emerges the winner with momentum and elan and the thanks of a grateful nation

    what are we to conclude?

    from this post you’d have to say that oh my goodness all them racists came out for Mr. Trump

    and me I say no

    this is not what we are seeing today

    it’s just not

    happyfeet (831175)

  36. well that’s one way to read it, the other is one stands for cops and the military and working men and women, and the other does not,

    narciso (732bc0)

  37. I’d guess Trump would have much better luck with this strategy in the northern states and California, Oregon and Washington.

    David Longfellow (8cba7a)

  38. Patterico, JVW,

    Here’s a “better” video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xm4g-iIw20 The photographer grabbed the SS agent’s throat after the bodyslam; after he had gotten up after kicking the agent from the ground and still feeling his oats. It looks like the initial provocation was purely verbal — two f-bombs according to the narrator.

    nk (dbc370)

  39. We’re all tired of it, we know it’s only used to shut down discussion, and now it’s been so played out that it can’t even be effectively used on anyone who might actually be a real racist or a fascist.

    Agreed.

    The problem I have is that in the Tapper interview, as part of two separate answers, Trump said this:

    Well, I have to look at the group. I mean, I don’t know what group you’re talking about.

    and

    I don’t know any – honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him.

    In 2000 Trump refused to run as a Reform Party candidate because of David Duke. The claim that he “doesn’t know anything about him” rings very shallow and appears to be a lie.

    As to “looking into the group,” is Trump saying that he’s never heard of the KKK? What did he do? Fail 3rd grade history and social studies?

    Trump got caught being stupid (again) and now he, his campaign and his supporters are trying to blame everyone else for his stupidity and lies.

    gitarcarver (0e8c2b)

  40. @gitarcarver:Well, I have to look at the group. I mean, I don’t know what group you’re talking about.

    FWIW he says he couldn’t hear properly through the earpiece–since his team had denounced Duke and the KKK the day before it seems plausible to me that he didn’t quite catch it. (Yes, I know, you heard everything perfectly on TV, but the people actually on TV sometimes don’t.)

    But wave all that aside and assume he understood Tapper perfectly. The this-unsavory-group-supports-you-and-I-demand-you-denounce-them is a game that the media only plays with people who run against Democrats.

    Has Bernie Sanders been asked to disavow anybody? Has Hillary Clinton been asked to disavow anybody?

    Good on Trump for refusing to play. It doesn’t matter if it’s Nazis (preemptvie Godwin). If Jake Tapper said to Ted Cruz, this Nazi group supports you I demand you denounce them, I would approve Ted Cruz making the same response Trump di

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  41. I will not stop fighting racism until Sammy Davis Jr. can get a room on the Las Vegas strip! We shall overcome…

    CrustyB (69f730)

  42. It seems likely that more violence, especially vs. members of the media, will be coming during these Trump rallies.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  43. Looks like the dude had it coming. SS agent should be allowed to check you out without you giving him a hard time. It’s not a turn-the-other-cheek profession.

    Jcurtis (9a271b)

  44. It seems likely that more violence, especially vs. members of the media, will be coming during these Trump rallies.

    Yeah, but how do we account for the fact that in this case it was the ostensibly non-partisan Secret Service who got aggressive? It’s not as if it was Old Whazzizname’s supporters choke-slamming the guy. Does being in the company of That F***in’ Guy make everyone go bat guano crazy?

    JVW (a73eab)

  45. because narrative is all that matters,

    narciso (732bc0)

  46. I’m guessing there was more to the original video than what we saw, maybe not, but I would have liked to see more of it,
    the second video is hard for me to see definitively from the start of the confrontation.
    It does look like the security over-reacted, is that SS?

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  47. Is it possible that Trump’s security is a mix of private and SS?
    IDK.

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  48. Gee, who runs the Secret Service. Don’t black lives matter to him? You would think heads would be rolling across the White House lawn.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  49. “Good on Trump for refusing to play.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    Manufactured admiration. Ask me to denounce the KKK – I’d be happy to do so.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  50. I have been reading this blog a long time, and Patterico, this Rabid anti-Trump crusade just isnt you. Ok I get it you dont like Trump. Fine. I dont either. But slapping on a tin foil hat and figuring our his master plan to appeal to southern white racists is beyond the pale. You are resorting to tactics previously reserved for ridicule when applied by the left.

    Snap out of it. This is painful to watch.

    Gil (4e1585)

  51. Glad this infantile obsession will be depantsed tomorrow AM.

    DNF (755a85)

  52. Manufactured admiration. Ask me to denounce the KKK – I’d be happy to do so.

    Whatever happened to asking political candidates about the issues?
    What does denouncing a group of 5000 insignificant, stupid, backward rednecks have to do with anything? Why should he even bother dignifying this question?

    Gil (4e1585)

  53. oh no, this will continue on to ahia, and indiana, and florida,

    narciso (732bc0)

  54. I just returned from voting. My neighborhood is majority-minority (probably 55% Latino and 20% other non-white), and historically has trended heavily Democratic. Both the Republican and GOP primaries are being held at the same elementary school where I’ve voted in years past. At about 11:00 a.m. when I voted, there was absolutely no line for either primary; but the folks I saw who were voting in the GOP primary looked pretty much like the same folks I saw in the 2012 GOP primary runoff when Cruz came from behind to demolish Dewhurst.

    From this most spectacularly unscientific analysis, I conclude that not many people in my neighborhood are feelin’ the Bern, and no large wave of new voters is coming out to give Trump a surprise win in Texas. Hillary will win the Texas handily for the Dems, and Cruz for the GOP, both by double-digit margins.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  55. If your twitter timeline is full of neo-nazis and Aryan Brotherhood types cheering you on, and you’re busily retweeting them, there might be something wrong with your message and agenda.

    John Hitchcock (f3ad73)

  56. Mr. Philly if R voters were not notoriously racist there would be no way to credibly posit that Mr. Trump is conspiring to take advantage of the situation

    Sure there is. Trump, being a typical NY Democrat, thinks R voters are racist.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  57. I wonder if the intellectuals in 1930s Europe were careful not to criticize the up-and-coming Nazi and fascist leaders too harshly, lest their criticisms be remembered.

    FIFY

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  58. I wonder if the intellectuals in 1930s Europe were careful not to criticize the up-and-coming Nazi and fascist leaders too harshly, lest their criticisms sound extreme and overwrought.

    In his biography, Out of Step, the socialist – but anti-communist – scholar Sidney Hook recounted his experiences in Germany during the rise of Hitler. He was there in the 1930s teaching in Munich. He mentions attending Hitler speeches and being shocked at them, especially the reaction of the crowds. When he went back to the university and told his fellow academics, all German, about his concerns they dismissed him. They said Hitler was just a crackpot and was harmless.

    On the other hand, I don’t think there’s much concern about intellectuals here not calling Trump a fascist and a danger. Haven’t they been warning about what he potentially can do?

    SteveMG (2ffac5)

  59. I thought the nominees got [SS protection] after the conventions.

    That changed with RFK.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  60. tell me again, kevin how they care about anyone’s protection:

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/dhs-secretly-scrubbed-1000-names-from-u-s-terror-watch-lists/

    narciso (732bc0)

  61. Looks like the dude had it coming. SS agent should be allowed to check you out without you giving him a hard time.

    Not in this country. This country was built on the princple of “non serviam”, which means mouthing off to “authorities” is an act of patriotism, and if you’re not willing to be disrespected then you shouldn’t go into any law enforcement position. Anyone who lays hands on someone for insulting him is a common criminal, but this is especially so for someone with an official badge.

    But then Jcurtis is someone who worries about white people becoming a minority, so what would he know about what this country stands for?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  62. happyfeet is not a Trump supporter. What he is is anti-Cruz. And anti-Rubio. And anti-Carson.

    He’s pretty much anti-everything. Except Trump. He doesn’t like it when people are against Mr Trump. Which for happyfeet is wild adoration.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  63. Gee, who runs the Secret Service. Don’t black lives matter to him?

    He doesn’t run the secret service. He’s officially their boss, but he has no say in hiring, training, or operations. Union rules, you know.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  64. brash and colorful, and I think he means well

    You’d better stock up on seasonings. Our host can advise. Those words don’t taste so good after the 500th helping or so.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  65. Philadelphia, where the new black panther party is allowed to run rampant, where

    narciso (732bc0)

  66. We’re all tired of it, we know it’s only used to shut down discussion, and now it’s been so played out that it can’t even be effectively used on anyone who might actually be a real racist or a fascist.

    Case in point. Trump is RUNNING as a fascist. Classical Mussolini labor-business-government troika fascism. Strong leader and central government with strong nationalist, nativist and male-dominant underpinnings. But the word has been used to describe Christie closing a lane to a bridge, or not letting the homeless set up camp in the park. So it’s useless.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  67. There is nothing wrong with aiming to win the votes of racists. Their votes count just like everyone else’s, and if you can get those votes without soiling yourself in the process you’d be a fool not to try. That may mean going out of your way not to actively drive them away. It may mean, as Nixon and Reagan did, giving them reasons to support you despite your staunch anti-racism. What a decent candidate does not do is give them room to believe that his anti-racism is just an act.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  68. Whatever happened to asking political candidates about the issues?

    Asking Trump about the issues? All you’ll get is “I have a plan, and it will be awesome!” or, at best “Read the position paper on my website” when you, he and the world knows he hasn’t even read the TITLE of the position paper and if he follows what it says it will be coincidence.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  69. It is good to see that Gil likes Trump. The bad stars align.

    Somehow this reminds me of “The Fifth Element”?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  70. Case in point. Trump is RUNNING as a fascist. Classical Mussolini labor-business-government troika fascism. Strong leader and central government with strong nationalist, nativist and male-dominant underpinnings. But the word has been used to describe Christie closing a lane to a bridge, or not letting the homeless set up camp in the park. So it’s useless.

    Yes, “fascist” was already played out in Mussolini’s lifetime. Orwell noted this in 1944.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  71. the rest of that story,

    It doesn’t matter where the slogan came from, you don’t retweet anything from an account called “Il Duce”.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  72. But I paid my tuition to be here.”

    Um, you did what?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  73. tell me again, kevin how they care about anyone’s protection:

    1) everything the do with those watch lists is secret.

    2) the took my name off one several years back, too, when “Kevin M” was just about enough to get you stopped for matching. Probably another Kevin M.

    3) The SS doesn’t protect little people.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  74. I’m not voting for Bernie Sanders because he’s a pinko, and I’m not voting for Donald Trump because he’s orange.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  75. Here’s one definitive answer, on a day that’s as yet filled with uncertainty:

    The Secret Service DOES NOT determine who qualifies for protection, nor is the Secret Service empowered to independently initiate candidate protection.

    Under 18 U.S.C. § 3056(a)(7), “[m]ajor Presidential and Vice Presidental candidates,” as identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, are eligible for Secret Service protection.

    Title 18 U.S.C. § 3056(a)(7) authorizes the U.S. Secret Service to provide protection for major presidential and vice presidential candidates:

    *Protection is authorized by the DHS Secretary after consultation with the Congressional Advisory Committee.

    *The Congressional Advisory Committee includes: Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and one additional member selected by the others.

    Criteria have been established to assist the DHS Secretary and the advisory committee in their decision making (as of 2008). Candidates must:

    *Be publically announced

    *Have some degree of prominence as shown by opinion polls

    *Be actively campaigning and entered in at least 10 state primaries

    *Be seeking the nomination of a qualified party

    *Have qualified for matching funds in the amount of at least $100,000

    *Have received contributions totaling $10 million

    Title 18 U.S.C. § 3056(a)(7) states that the U.S. Secret Service is also authorized to protect spouses of major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, as identified by the DHS Secretary, within 120 days of the general Presidential election. Some candidates have received protection earlier in the campaign pursuant to Presidential memoranda.

    Carson & Trump were extended Secret Service protection back in November, having each requested it in October:

    Nominated presidential candidates from both parties began getting Secret Service protection after Robert Kennedy was assassinated in 1968. Under a new process established in 2008, in the wake of threats against then-candidate and Sen. Barack Obama, the secretary of homeland security can decide to provide details to candidates who are front-runners in their party or who face unique threats against their safety.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that Donald Trump needs Secret Service protection. I wonder why he hasn’t volunteered to reimburse the government for it, though? I pray for the safety of the professionals involved in providing security to all of the candidates.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  76. I find “statist” to be a more useful term in this context. But “crony-capitalism” is also apt, especially with regard to Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  77. I’ll ask again… has Bernie Sanders been asked to disavow the support of CommunistPartyUSA?

    Colonel Haiku (c06b23)

  78. has Bernie Sanders been asked to disavow the support of CommunistPartyUSA?

    Why would he? He’s probably proud of it.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  79. Case in point. Trump is RUNNING as a fascist. Classical Mussolini labor-business-government troika fascism. Strong leader and central government with strong nationalist, nativist and male-dominant underpinnings. But the word has been used to describe Christie closing a lane to a bridge, or not letting the homeless set up camp in the park. So it’s useless.

    Kevin M you’ve gotten to the point where you sound as unhinged as Trump does crazy. Trump is NOT running as a fascist, he’s running as a Republican. That classical Mussolini troika you reference has been in America since the New Deal, where’ve you been? And we’ve had strong leaders but we did not have and do not have a central government, if by that you mean dictatorship, although Obama tries hard. Rather than nationalist, nativist male underpinnings would you rather be run by foreigners with female dominant underpinnings?

    You’ve gotten to the point where all you do is keep throwing insult after insult at Trump and his supporters and it’s looking a bit crazy.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  80. “Authoritarian statist” or perhaps “Caudillo”. “Dear Leader” is perhaps unwarranted, but we will be told if it is.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  81. It’s a fundamental religious principle, not just on the hard left but throughout the Democrat Party, that that there is a clear moral distinction between nazism and communism; and that however bad communism may be on an absolute scale, anticommunism is almost as bad if not worse. Racism and fascism are things that must be condemned without qualification, one may not share a platform with a racist or a fascist, one must pretend not to want the support of such people, but not only are communism and communists not to be regarded in that light, but to do so is almost as bad as racism or fascism, and is likely to be a symptom of one or both. So Sanders can revel in the CPUSA’s support without any negative consequences on his side of the fence, even from those who themselves disapprove of communism.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  82. Trump is NOT running as a fascist, he’s running as a Republican. That classical Mussolini troika you reference has been in America since the New Deal,

    And where do you think the New Deal got it? It is fascism, and he’s running on it.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  83. yes, but the nature of those lists, and san bernardino, and boston and chattanooga, just keep replaying the dead zone,

    narciso (732bc0)

  84. If they had been white at a black lives matter rally, three or four would have been stabbed and stomped first. Then they would have thrown them out.

    And nobody would have given a half of a dam about Shaquanda’s tears.

    Racists.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  85. We have had big business big labor and big government since the New Deal, but, with the exception of the unlamented National Industrial Recovery Act, they have never been joined under central government oversight. Reagan managed to run America just fine without those -ist aspects. So did Clinton and the Bushes. You may have a point that Obama went the other way. But none have gone so far down the jingoistic highway that Trump has traveled as far as nationalism or xenophobia or open misogyny that Trump has exhibited.

    I am really sorry if this is all invisible to you.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  86. 81. has Bernie Sanders been asked to disavow the support of CommunistPartyUSA?

    Why should he? In todays America the communists are loved.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  87. I wonder if the intellectuals in 1930s Europe were careful not to criticize the up-and-coming Nazi and fascist leaders too harshly, lest their criticisms sound extreme and overwrought.

    Much the same way that some turn-of-the-20th century Armenian artists and silversmiths became “Turkish” overnight, I suppose.

    A lot of intellectuals in Britain were reluctant to trust reports of National Socialist thuggery given that the British government purportedly (and, in some cases, actually) exaggerated or fabricated German repression in Belgium and France during the Great War.

    JP (bd5dd9)

  88. I’m not a Trump fan, but come on, this is starting to resemble grasping at straws.

    First off, no matter what the Secret Service guy did, unless he’s taking orders regarding how to behave in such situation from Trump, it’s irrelevant to Trump. Or are we seriously claiming that Trump is now giving procedural “rules of engagement” type orders to the Secret Service and ordered the SS agent to do that, and the agent was just following Trump’s orders? If this was one of Trump’s private bodyguards I’d see the point, but a Secret Service agent?

    Regarding demonstrators and protestors; I see no problem, either legally or ethically, with them being tossed out of events. The alternative is to allow a few troublemakers to disrupt the whole event, and emasculate the candidate. Caveat: I fully support the right of protestors to peacefully protest outside an event. That’s freedom of speech.

    And, on Trump’s refusal to disavow the David Duke endorsement during one interview; he disavowed the day before, and also after the interview. So, why did he not do so during the interview? One logical scenario is that he’d been told Duke actually hadn’t endorsed him, that the media had made it up out of whole cloth, and thus suspected a trap. That’s plausible in light of the fact that Duke hadn’t endorsed him and the media really did make it up.
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/01/former-kkk-grand-wizard-david-duke-accuses-media-of-lying-i-never-endorsed-trump/
    That doesn’t let Trump off the hook for not taking an opportunity to slam the KKK, of course, but it does cast the whole kerfuffle in a different light.

    Arizona CJ (da673d)

  89. It is good to see that Gil likes Trump. The bad stars align.
    Asking Trump about the issues? All you’ll get is “I have a plan, and it will be awesome!”

    @Kevin

    Ive said many times I dont like Trump, once even in this comments section.

    Now, I agree Trump often says idiotic things and has no substantive plans. Lets press him on that instead of rooting around in the muck like we all complain about when the left does it.

    Gil (4e1585)

  90. Starting to? Pat’s rolling around in the sewer as if he were born to it.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  91. When you say xenophobia and misogyny you sound like an 18 year old co-ed at Stanford, loaded with STD’s, crying for “the trees” and needing a safe place from the big bad white men. You really shouldn’t insist upon calling everyone names who disagrees with you.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  92. MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84) — 3/1/2016 @ 8:25 am

    Which would be consistent with the idea of Trump being in collusion with the Clintons.

    I am not convinced that is the case, but I see it as plausible.

    And if it is not the case, truth may be even stranger.

    I’m inclined to the idea that, as the best tentative fit, that while Donald Trump himself is not (intentionally at least) in collusion with the Clintons, (but actually wants to get elected president) some close “friend” of his, from whom he is taking advice, is in collusion with the Clintons.

    It’s not just Rudolph Giulian whom he’s talking to. Bill Cinton has very very long term ties to New Jersey. There could be some crucial person or persons.

    This person or persons also maybe influenced Chris Christie, and predicted ahead of time, before Chris Christie himself knew, that he would endorse Donald Trump. Predicted is the wrong word actually – this person, or some people he told, claimed that Christie had already decided to. Christie apparently has long known Donald Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (9775b0)

  93. Didn’t we use to point fingers and laugh at other people getting wee wee’d up over nothing burgers like this?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  94. @ papertiger: Did you think Romney’s “47 percent” comment was something to get wee-wee’d up over? Because it probably cost him the election. “I don’t know who David Duke is.” That’s going to be about 10,000 worse than “47 percent.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  95. Trump wins Social conservative populists defeat ayn randist movement conservative sociopaths who think its great our jobs are being sent out of the country!

    president trump (a61bee)

  96. Nonetheless, xenophobia and misogyny are real things, and ugly things. No matter how many times the little boy falsely cries wolf, the real wolves won’t go away.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  97. If you think I’m pointing a finger at you and laughing, papertiger, you’re right.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  98. Oh noes! The black lies matter kids didn’t get to yell and roll out their sign before the mean white men asked them to leave with a tone in their voice.

    Oh I having the vapors. Somebody get me a mint.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  99. You could hear that tone in the voice. Beldar has it too. It’s the tone of privilege.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  100. So, papertiger, maybe you can answer my question above:

    Why hasn’t Trump reimbursed the American taxpayer for the costs of his Secret Service protection? He’s a big-shot who has security around him 24/7/365 anyway. Why should the American public have to bear the cost of giving him an upgrade to the Secret Service, and if he wants to make America great again, why won’t he begin putting his money where his mouth is by paying his own freight out of those billions of dollars he’s gathered by screwing us over through his bankruptcies?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  101. So, without evidence, papertiger deemed a black person to be part of the BM crowd, because the black person had the same color skin.

    John Hitchcock (f3ad73)

  102. I can project myself into the mind of a BLM protester.

    If there was danger for these BLM kids at a Trump rally, they wouldn’t be there readying up for a frolic at “the man’s” expense.

    They know it’s a big joke.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  103. I guess he could hire his own security detail, ala joe miller, but that has it’s drawbacks,

    narciso (732bc0)

  104. No matter how many times the little boy falsely cries wolf, the real wolves won’t go away.

    No, the real wolves won’t go away but a lot of innocent people can get a ruined reputation. But I guess the old “kill’em all let God sort’em out” philosophy can work. Except the real wolves don’t care what you call them. Besides, there is nothing irrational about protecting our borders so xenophobia doesn’t fit.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  105. Bernie Sanders would have had them up on stage for coffee and donuts.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  106. John Hitchcock is calling me a profiler.

    Doofus.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  107. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) chairs the House Border Security Caucus, which toured the Valley in February.

    “If people figure they have a 95 percent chance of being allowed to stay and work and get government benefits, they’re going to come no matter what they might hear on the street or on the radio or see in a leaflet,” said Smith.

    “In the past few months the number of unaccompanied alien minors* unlawfully entering the U.S. soared to over 17,000 and the number of family units increased to 21,000,” Chair Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) informed the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security in a February 4 hearing on Capitol Hill. “If these trends continue it is predicted there will be a 30 percent increase in the record high numbers we witnessed in 2014.”

    That’s not xenophobia, that’s statistics.

    *I thought “dividing families” was wrong? Oh, only if we do it, I see.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  108. much like Frau Merkel and her Austrian comrades, have decided ‘sorry about that’ after Cologne,

    narciso (732bc0)

  109. What happens if Cruz loses Texas? Is he out? Must I once again switch, now to Rubio?

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  110. it seems we have preserved the establishment reaction to goldwater in aspic, from 1964, that’s some strong formaldehyde,

    narciso (732bc0)

  111. it’s super DUPER tuesday!!

    i wonder who’s gonna win

    it’s all up for grabs

    the whole chinchilla!

    will it be… Ted? (pooper)

    will it be… Marco? (ugh)

    will it be Donald? (yay!)

    oh my goodness i can’t wait to find out

    happyfeet (831175)

  112. but then again the reporter is a white guy with white guy privilege and the SS agent is a person of color.

    That’s why I’m always leery whenever charges of racism or police brutality are bandied about, certainly in this age of political correctness gone berserk. Moreover, the very word “racist” or “racism” has been so dumbed down over the past 50 years, that it has lost its original meaning and impact.

    Cruz is the only vote against establishment and for the people.

    Cruz is more ideologically reliable and perhaps also more emotionally well anchored too than the front-running Republican—which, of course, applies double or quadruple to the front-running Democrat. But I raised the specter of Peggy Noonan back in 2008 as a reminder of the way that purely visceral emotions can influence quite a few people and override their objectivity.

    The current occupant of the Oval Office is a horror extraordinaire, a truly corrupt leftist. But, unlike Ted Cruz, his face and vocal patterns (in general) allow him to trigger the warm fuzzies in a variety of people, regardless of their ideology and political affiliation. That’s a point I was trying to emphasize several weeks ago, and set off quite a bit of indignation in the process. To ignore the dynamics behind that is at our peril—or opens us up to potentially bitter disappointment in November.

    Mark (6c93d5)

  113. I’ve read where Trump has actually been mainly lending money to his campaign, not giving it.
    Sorry, can’t give the source, but it was a more reliable was as these things go.

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  114. 81… He should be asked about it.. No? It might not bother him, but it would a lot of other folks. CommunistPartyUSA may bother some.

    Colonel Haiku (c06b23)

  115. So the voters Cruz was expecting to get went Trump … what does that say about Cruz’ strategy?

    But I agree, Northerners are bigoted and bias on issue pertaining to the South.

    Rodney King's Spirit (3adc86)

  116. My tree guy is white, middle-aged and votes Republican but he just tried to convince me to vote for Hillary if Trump wins. In my area, Trump only seems to appeal to the young and the old.

    DRJ (15874d)

  117. Mr. Trump is a stupendous alternative to the nasty incontinent old woman I think cause of he won’t pee everywhere

    happyfeet (831175)

  118. Is there even one ounce of doubt those kids were there to disrupt?

    Don’t young folks at rallies typically have Pro candidate dress/signs etc?

    Were they excited to see Trump and rallying for his cause?

    LOL, please, if anything this is a sign Trump is aware of the loons and has no fear of the loons and tossing them.

    ANd if you want to call it profiling, yeah, but I call it the type common sense that brought us forward last 100,000 years or so.

    Rodney King's Spirit (3adc86)

  119. there’s no doubt in my mind Mr. Spirit

    not even a little bit

    happyfeet (831175)

  120. This video appears to show the lead-up to it: Contempt of Cop. This needs to stop before the jackboots start imposing similar punishments for Contempt of Trump.

    I know Pat has said it was wrong to make a snap judgement based on the video, but that strikes me as category error.

    Secret Service agents are not Trump’s thugs. It isn’t like he can give them a secret signal and they’ll beat Times reporters up on demand. Trump is their boss only in the sense that Trump sets their schedule. Because the Trump campaign has control over the itinerary.

    Other than that they work for the Secret Service, the Secret Service is responsible for screening and training them to conduct themselves appropriately, and if this agent did not conduct himself appropriately then the Secret Service will discipline him.

    These agents probably aren’t even Trump fans. They don’t get to pick their assignments; many of them despise the pols they have to guard. “Like” has nothing to do with it. They certainly aren’t on these security details to listen to the candidates. In fact, they don’t listen to the speeches because if they do they aren’t doing their job.

    I am not a Trump fan, as you all may have gathered. Not by a long shot. But the idea that the “tone” of Trump’s speech or his event somehow turned the Secret Service agent into a jackbooted thug is absurd. They don’t pay attention to the candidate’s “tone;” they’re too busy looking for a threat to the candidate.

    There’s another thing to consider. Trump may have set that Times reporter off. That guy may well have had a negative reaction to Trump. It’s hard to tell from the camera angle but in addition to verbal provocation the reporter may have chest-bumbed the SS agent. Bad move.

    The bottom line is, if you’re all going to blame this SS agent’s conduct on Trump because somehow he set the “tone,” then be consistent. Then you have to blame the conduct of the SS agents picking up Colombian hookers, getting snot slinging drunk, driving sometimes, on the guy they work for who sets the “tone.” And that would be Obama.

    Steve57 (1ace39)

  121. I will not stop fighting racism until Sammy Davis Jr. can get a room on the Las Vegas strip! We shall overcome…

    CrustyB (69f730) — 3/1/2016 @ 9:55 am

    He has a permanent gig at Forest Lawn Cemetery, which is possibly one of the most white-bred mortuaries on earth. Does that count?

    “Who can make the sun rise,
    Sprinkle it with dew…..”

    Bill H (dcdd7b)

  122. I still can not get over the fact that we the people have every right to be racist or bigoted or homophobic or whatever.

    The Civil Rights Act was not meant to eliminate our freedoms.

    Be nice if folks point this out as they are seeking to skewer people.

    But anyway, freedom means freedom for one to choose so long as they don’t take away someone’s else’s freedom to choose.

    Rodney King's Spirit (3adc86)

  123. What if President Trump goes back on his promise to build a wall and you decide to protest that at oNE of his speeches. Should Trump orsomeone on his staff be able to kick you out beforehand, because you are carrying a sign that says “Mr. President, build the Wall!”

    DRJ (15874d)

  124. The spirit of Jason Blair at worst and/or that of Dan Rather at best concerning this particular post by Mr. Patt.

    mike191 (4c004d)

  125. #126 And what if my grandmother had ballz, she’d be …. stop with the what if. There is not doubt what was going on with the students at that rally. Student actually says they were there to voice their displeasure. He chucked them. Good for him. They could have applied for a “permit” to do the protest outside where Media could cross their noses and get quotes.

    Rodney King's Spirit (3adc86)

  126. “LOUISIANA SHERIFF WHO CALLED GANG MEMBERS ‘ANIMALS’ GETS THE AXE: “And people wonder why Trump is leading in the polls…”

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/228039/

    Colonel Haiku (c06b23)

  127. What if President Trump goes back on his promise to build a wall and you decide to protest that at oNE of his speeches. Should Trump orsomeone on his staff be able to kick you out beforehand, because you are carrying a sign that says “Mr. President, build the Wall!”

    IN that event, at least my righteous indignation will be met with a tone of disapproval, rather than a beating and emergency room visit.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  128. Yoenis Cespedes Drops $7,000 on a 270-Pound Pig from a County Fair.
    He’s an outfielder for the New York Mets who really knows his bacon.

    You have to admit that is one charming pig.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  129. What if President Trump goes back on his promise to build a wall and you decide to protest that at oNE of his speeches. Should Trump orsomeone on his staff be able to kick you out beforehand, because you are carrying a sign that says “Mr. President, build the Wall!”

    Well, yes. It’s a private event, and he can kick out anyone for any reason. He certainly doesn’t want critics at what’s meant to be a campaign rally! Why should he?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  130. MD is correct. Trump is loaning his campaign money and he has received north of $7 million in contributions so far.

    carlitos (931d13)

  131. DRJ, it might not even be an option or enough to swing the election if you and your tree guy vote for Hillary! Just imagine if Trump and Hillary! Both win the nomination and then Hillary! Is indicted by the Feds for the email thing. Michael Bloomberg runs third party, so it’s him or away, a trump? I’d consider moving to Western Canada.

    carlitos (931d13)

  132. But then Jcurtis is someone who worries about white people becoming a minority, so what would he know about what this country stands for?

    Milhouse (87c499) — 3/1/2016 @ 10:49 am

    As someone who lived in California when it was nice, you’ll have a hard time convincing me that demographic change is some oddball conspiracy theory. I’m just glad I had an escape route out of California. Escape routes are gonna be hard to come by when it happens on a national scale.

    jcurtis (9331ed)

  133. What if President Trump goes back on his promise to build a wall and you decide to protest that at oNE of his speeches. Should Trump orsomeone on his staff be able to kick you out beforehand, because you are carrying a sign that says “Mr. President, build the Wall!”

    DRJ (15874d) — 3/1/2016 @ 2:24 pm

    You think he’ll be giving speeches if he does that? Will there be a mariachi band? I can’t believe there is anyone of any political stripe who would believe that Trump will be satisfied with one term, and that’s all he’ll get if he doesn’t come through. Trump is already too moderate on immigration but people think he’ll be better than the others.

    jcurtis (9331ed)

  134. I find “statist” to be a more useful term in this context. But “crony-capitalism” is also apt, especially with regard to Trump.

    Thanks for that, Beldar. I too am a little bit leery about our casual use of “fascist,” which seems to be only a polite nod to Mr. Godwin’s rule. To me, calling Old Whazzizname a “statist” or a “crony capitalist” or a “phony populist profiteer” is a much more apt description for his singular brand of odium.

    JVW (9e3c77)

  135. When I watch the video, I see a secret service agent react to a verbal comment with a physical attack. I see an agent who does not appear to consider the photog an actual threat but allows the confrontation to escalate, take him off post and become a distraction. Quite unprofessional.

    The Secret Service has become a disgrace.

    SPQR (d7fa7f)

  136. SPQR!!!!

    JD (34f761)

  137. JD!

    SPQR (d7fa7f)

  138. An airport cop friend claims to have seen an agent smack Sam Donaldson in the head with a radio for jumping a rope line.

    cm smith (62de3c)

  139. I’m from Georgia. I’ve been watching this happen like a slow motion car crash.

    People I have known all my life, some smart, but mostly the dumb bigots have totally bought in. Hell its even worse than that. I’m disgusted and feel nothing but contempt for people I call friends.

    Donald (c0fe04)

  140. Duke says he didn’t endorse Trump. So, if true, there’s nothing to disavow. But if you think the only thing you can hang on Trump is racism–nothing else sticks–that’s the dead horse you have to flog. Even if it’s made up. Some will believe it and some will pretend to believe it.

    Other reports say the students removed were not sitting or standing silently, but being noisy and disruptive.
    I suspect it would have been okay for anybody but Trump to order disruptive audience members removed.

    It’s one thing to hate Trump. It’s one thing to point out his flaws. But accusing him of flaws he does not have increases sympathy. So there’s a gray area.

    It is particularly ungraceful for people living in the south to signal their virtue and moral superiority by condemning their neighbors. Maybe they are concerned about the phenomenon exemplified by Kate Steinle (aka “who>”) and the various levels of government involved who didn’t say, “my bad” and did say they’re not going to change a thing.

    Maybe they wonder if the guy who claims to have been called off investigating the Farook family in San Berdoo because it didn’t look good to be coming down on Muslims is telling the truth. Maybe they know that, on 9-11, the head of the FBI said, “I hope it’s not those guys in the midwest flight schools.” Maybe they know that, after Russian intel gave the FBI the Tsarnaevs on a platter, the fibbies’ response was “You’re not the boss of me.”

    The VA’s excuse…”These are federal employees and there’s not a G.D. thing you can do about it, so screw you.” The EPA after the mine disaster; “Huh? But turn a shovel of dirt on your property and we’ll put you in jail right next to the guy who had illegal rainbarrels.”

    There’s plenty of room to want to send, as one writer said, a human wrecking ball to DC.

    But if all you’ve got is racism, flog that horse.

    I have no idea what Trump is going to do. What he says, what he says he said, and what he does/did, have only a random relationship. Point to that.

    Richard Aubrey (472a6f)

  141. jcurtis (9331ed) — 3/1/2016 @ 3:56 pm

    And jcurtis confirms once again, in case there was any doubt, that he thinks it’s a bad thing for the majority of a population to be non-white. In other words, that government policy should be aimed at having as many white people, and as few non-white people, as possible. And thus he confirms that his values are utterly alien to America. I’d advise him to move to the Third Reich, but oops, we destroyed it. I wonder whether he thinks that was a mistake.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  142. Ladies and gentlemen I give you the people’s republic of california, like Labour when they admitted their immigration policies were about preventing another Thatcher.

    narciso (732bc0)

  143. narciso, is there an optimal percentage of white people in a society, and if so what is it? What, if any, is the optimal percentage of each other race? And is it appropriate for government policy to be aimed at achieving or maintaining such a percentage? For a bonus question, do you agree that it’s self-evident that all men are created equal, or do you agree with John C Calhoun that this is “the most false and dangerous of all political errors”?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  144. I’ve long thought that jim crow, not slavery was the final dagger in the American experiment, it has made revenge over parity an overwhelming imperative.

    narciso (732bc0)

  145. “Donald Trump has a New York Democrat’s view of what the Republican party is. And in the South, he thinks it’s made up of a bunch of racists.”

    …and he’s running away with it. I get that there’s a bunch of Republicans who don’t fit the stereotype, but clearly there are wide swaths of GOP voters who not only pick up what he’s laying down but appreciate it.

    To me, the question is, why have the non-racist, non-fascist wings of the party been so slow to purge or even critique this element thus far? My sense is, it’s because the cross-pollination has benefited the GOP in certain ways prior to this election cycle.

    Looks like it’s time to pay the piper.

    Tom Ryberg (2c5752)

  146. The dems have been pushing this law and order equals racism, since the 60s, some on this boats seem to have swallowed it whole.

    narciso (732bc0)

  147. narciso, what has law and order got to do with it? jcurtis (with, apparently, your agreement) openly says that his concern is about not having enough white people. That’s the very definition of racism. America was founded on the proposition that all men are created equal, so it should be of no concern to anyone to even inquire what percentage of the population happens to be white, let alone to fret if it isn’t the “right” number.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  148. I’ve long thought that jim crow, not slavery was the final dagger in the American experiment, it has made revenge over parity an overwhelming imperative.
    narciso (732bc0) — 3/2/2016 @ 7:14 am

    I agree that jim crow was terrible and a deep wound, the bloody cost of the civil war to “make amends” for slavery became “history”, as in too far in the past to be relevant

    But affirmative action and race hustling was another deep wound along with jim crow, replacing envy of one form with another form

    From what I know, Evers and King and others had a righteous cause,
    which LBJ corrupted into a political power play,
    rather than a desire for justice,
    and yields bitter fruit to this day

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  149. Yes but the former made the latter almost inevitable.

    narciso (732bc0)

  150. @Milhouse:America was founded on the proposition that all men are created equal*

    *Some restrictions applied. Offer was not valid in all states.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  151. @Milhouse: Try to remember what there was in 1776 and 1789:

    Property qualifications to vote
    Restriction of the franchise to men
    Established state churches
    Religious tests for state offices
    Slavery

    None of these things were abolished in 1789.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  152. And jcurtis confirms once again, in case there was any doubt, that he thinks it’s a bad thing for the majority of a population to be non-white.

    I don’t think he’s saying that at all. I think he’s saying immigration is out of control. And if he does think it’s a bad thing for the majority of OUR (not a) population to be non white so what? The majority of our population has traditionally been white and it remains so today. Are you some anti white racist that believes America has no right to it’s traditional cultural, social and religious history? Or do you believe it’s bad for the majority to BE white?

    In other words, that government policy should be aimed at having as many white people, and as few non-white people, as possible.

    There are no “other words”. Government policy should be to protect and defend the people of the United States. That means controlling immigration both illegal and legal. That means not flooding our culture with unassimilable aliens who neither fit in to nor want to be American. Especially aliens who want to harm us.

    And thus he confirms that his values are utterly alien to America. I’d advise him to move to the Third Reich, but oops, we destroyed it. I wonder whether he thinks that was a mistake.
    Milhouse

    The only thing “confirmed” here is that you are a pompous elitist who believes you and you only know what “values” are American and you are willing to sully another American with inferences of racism because he wants to keep the status quo. Just so you know, the status quo IS America. Any attempt by government to change that is treason. As usual, you run to the Nazi’s as a comparison as expected. God forbid someone disagree and not be a jack booted Nazi.

    I find it hard to believe that anybody who does not want to dramatically change the racial make-up and thereby the culture and society of America is somehow a racist Nazi. I’m in love with and married to a Korean but I don’t want 30-40 million Koreans moving to America. So why would I want that in Mexicans, or Italians or any body else? If I wanted to live with millions of Koreans I’d move to Seoul.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  153. While passages in Scripture that condemn oppression by the rich (not being wealthy in itself) are well known,
    there is a passage in the OT (not sure where- Milhouse?) that says it is wrong to favor the poor just because they are poor,
    in other words, justice is indeed supposed to be blind
    (though mercy has its eyes wide open)

    favoring a poor person over another person just because they are poor is not just,
    in some situations perhaps mercy would lead one to do that,
    but as a standard policy implemented by the government,
    it is unjust

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  154. Do not favor a poor person in his lawsuit. — Exodus 23:3

    Do no crookedness in judgment; neither favour a poor person nor respect a great one, but judge your fellow honestly. — Leviticus 19:15

    Milhouse (87c499)

  155. Thank you, Milhouse.
    I knew asking you would be faster than consulting a concordance.

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  156. @MD in Philly:but as a standard policy implemented by the government,
    it is unjust

    Yes, it is unjust by design. It is how the autocrat suppresses power held by other people.

    is son, Sextus, pretending to be ill-treated by his father, and covered with the bloody marks of stripes, fled to Gabii. The infatuated inhabitants intrusted him with the command of their troops, and when he had obtained the unlimited confidence of the citizens, he sent a messenger to his father to inquire how he should deliver the city into his hands. The king, who was walking in his garden when the messenger arrived, made no reply, but kept striking off the heads of the tallest poppies with his stick. Sextus took the hint. He put to death or banished, on false charges, all the leading men of the place, and then had no difficulty in compelling it to submit to his father.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  157. And jcurtis confirms once again, in case there was any doubt, that he thinks it’s a bad thing for the majority of a population to be non-white.

    I don’t think he’s saying that at all.

    His exact words were “You’ll be that much closer to a permanent white minority in 2020.” That is what bothers him. “It will be all about reversing demographic change and looming civil war.” Rahowa FTW.

    The majority of our population has traditionally been white and it remains so today.

    And America stands for the proposition that that is a mere trivium, neither good nor bad, and should not matter to anyone.

    Are you some anti white racist that believes America has no right to it’s traditional cultural, social and religious history?

    America’s history is unchangeable. No matter what happens now, it will always have had whatever racial distribution that it had at any given time. But that distribution has never been static, the percentage of white people has always risen or fallen, and there is no reason why it should not rise or fall even more in the future.

    Or do you believe it’s bad for the majority to BE white?

    It’s a bad thing for anyone to care whether the majority is white, brown, black, or purple.

    Just so you know, the status quo IS America. Any attempt by government to change that is treason

    Excuse me? WTF? That is probably the weirdest, wrongest, evilest thing you have ever written. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Nothing else.

    Defending the status quo, any status quo, is stagnation. Status quos need to change. And status quos of completely irrelevant metrics, such as the population’s racial makeup, must be allowed to change as they will, completely at random, because any government attempt to manage them is arbitrary and capricious.

    Or do you believe it’s bad for the majority to BE white?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  158. Oops, that last line was a quote from Hoagie that shoudl have been deleted.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  159. You’re welcome, MD. Though it was only faster because I happened to be looking at the thread at the time.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  160. @Milhouse:But that distribution has never been static, the percentage of white people has always risen or fallen, and there is no reason why it should not rise or fall even more in the future.

    Numbers and time are of the essence. If every American, of whatever race, were replaced tomorrow by a Chinese immigrant, or a Syrian immigrant, would the air and water and soil magically transform them into Americans?

    Immigration should be held to the rate at which immigrants can be excepted to assimilate. Otherwise, you are dissolving the people and electing another.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  161. Jcurtis, by his own words, is concerned about the color of people’s skin. He thinks a white minority is a bad thing. By definition, that makes him a racist and un-American.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  162. As I’ve written elsewhere, David Duke’s support for Trump is not surprising, but the difference is that if the people streaming over the Mexican border were of Scandinavian stock Duke would be cheering them on, while Trump would still oppose them. It seems that jcurtis would be with Duke on tat one.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  163. @Milhouse:By definition, that makes him a racist and un-American.

    Did you skip class the day they taught American history? When was racism un-American? Certainly it is not now, with our systems of quotas and set-asides and public shaming of anyone who offends people who claims to speak for a race.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  164. @milhouse: David Duke’s support for Trump is not surprising,

    It is not surprising, it is fictional. He never made any such endorsement.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/01/david-duke-says-will-vote-for-trump-but-denies-endorsement.html

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  165. Racism has always been un-American; look at the trouble the founders went to come up with wording that, even while entrenching slavery because they had to, gave no sanction to racism. There was a shameful time when racism became popular, just as other un-American sentiments did. Un-American means counter to what America is supposed to be, not to what the current fashion happens to be; it’s aspirational, not descriptive. The current leftist obsession with race started out as a mere cynical political ploy, but they are now reaping a whirlwind in the form of a generation they have raised to actually believe their racist twaddle, and to have no qualms about expressing it in public. It’s one of the things we must urgently change about the status quo, not something we should encourage.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  166. Gabriel, read your own link. Duke “said he would vote for the real estate mogul and had encouraged others to do the same.” That is an endorsement, whether he likes the word or not.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  167. @Milhouse:Duke “said he would vote for the real estate mogul and had encouraged others to do the same.”

    But when Tapper asked Trump the question, Duke had made no such public endorsement. You can interpret what he has said SINCE then as an endorsement, and I would not disagree with you.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  168. @Milhouse: the founders…gave no sanction to racism.

    Not even the ones who owned black people? Why did they have racist laws then? Why did they fail to change or even discuss them? The Declaration of Independence was written for an audience that took what we call racism to be the natural order.

    Tell it to the Marines, sailors will never believe it.

    In none of the public discussions around the Declaration of Constitution will you find any founders taking any trouble to avoid sounding racist. I expect you to produce any evidence you have that any wording was changed or revised to avoid racism.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  169. @Milhouse:gave no sanction to racism

    “He has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, & conditions of existence.”

    Does “merciless savage” sounds like wording carefully chosen to give no sanction to racism?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  170. @Milhouse: the trouble the founders went to come up with wording that gave no sanction to racism

    John Adams wrote about how the Declaration of Independence was drafted and revised:

    “A meeting we accordingly had, and conned the paper over. I was delighted with its high tone and the flights of oratory with which it abounded, especially that concerning Negro slavery, which, though I knew his Southern brethren would never suffer to pass in Congress, I certainly never would oppose. There were other expressions which I would not have inserted if I had drawn it up, particularly that which called the King tyrant. I thought this too personal, for I never believed George to be a tyrant in disposition and in nature; I always believed him to be deceived by his courtiers on both sides of the Atlantic, and in his official capacity, only, cruel. I thought the expression too passionate, and too much like scolding, for so grave and solemn a document; but as Franklin and Sherman were to inspect it afterwards, I thought it would not become me to strike it out. I consented to report it, and do not now remember that I made or suggested a single alteration.”

    “We reported it to the committee of five. It was read, and I do not remember that Franklin or Sherman criticized anything. We were all in haste. Congress was impatient, and the instrument was reported, as I believe, in Jefferson’s handwriting, as he first drew it. Congress cut off about a quarter of it, as I expected they would; but they obliterated some of the best of it, and left all that was exceptionable, if anything in it was. I have long wondered that the original draft had not been published. I suppose the reason is the vehement philippic against Negro slavery.”

    So the one part it in that condemned slavery they took out; they rest of it they took as is with little deliberation of any kind.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  171. @Milhouse:Duke “said he would vote for the real estate mogul and had encouraged others to do the same.”

    But when Tapper asked Trump the question, Duke had made no such public endorsement. You can interpret what he has said SINCE then as an endorsement, and I would not disagree with you.

    Yes, he had. The Tapper interview was on the 28th. On the 24th Duke said that “voting against Donald Trump at this point, is really treason to your heritage”, that “I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action”, and that his listeners should “call Donald Trump’s headquarters, volunteer. They’re screaming for volunteers. Go in there, you’re gonna meet people who are going to have the same kind of mindset that you have.” In his peculiar lexicon that may not be an endorsement, but in standard English it is.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  172. @Milhouse: the founders…gave no sanction to racism.

    Not even the ones who owned black people?

    They claimed it had nothing to do with race. And originally that was true. By that time it had stopped being true, but they may still have beleived it. But even if they didn’t, they at least pretended to.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  173. Does “merciless savage” sounds like wording carefully chosen to give no sanction to racism?

    It was an exact description of their enemies’ behavior, and had nothing to do with race. They were quite happy to associate with friendly Indians. Of course there was a good deal of dishonesty about the rights and wrongs of the matter, as one would expect in any war.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  174. So the one part it in that condemned slavery they took out; they rest of it they took as is with little deliberation of any kind.

    Yep. It was a tightrope, and the constitution was even more of a tightrope, but they went out of their way to avoid anything that was racist. Even more remarkable, they went out of their way to avoid any language that endorsed slavery. Look at the clauses that entrenched the practise, and they’re carefully worded to avoid giving sanction to what they were protecting.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  175. Your point seems to be that many of the founders were racist. That may very well be so, but they seem to have perceived it as a vice, not something they were proud of.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  176. @Milhouse:They claimed it had nothing to do with race.

    Cite, please, any founder saying that slavery had nothing to do with race, and other founders agreeing and changing any founding document in any way in response.

    Look at the clauses that entrenched the practise, and they’re carefully worded to avoid giving sanction to what they were protecting.

    Cite please, any time in the deliberations where this issue came up and they decided to carefully avoid any racist wording.

    That may very well be so, but they seem to have perceived it as a vice, not something they were proud of.

    Cite please.

    Look, I admire and respect the founders. Be they angels? Nay, they are but men. It is ridiculous to condemn them for what is now a pernicious vice but was not thought to be so then. But it is even MORE ridiculous to portray them as having modern virtues which were unknown in their day. It is the polar opposite of the other error.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  177. @Milhouse: In Federalist No. 54, discussing apportionment, Madison explicitly equates “negroes” (his word) and “slaves”.

    The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants.

    So you are 100% wrong that the founders considered slavery to have, as you put it, nothing to do with race.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  178. The Declaration and the Constitution, which are their official work, contain no sanction either of racism or of slavery, and that was no accident. It speaks louder than anything about what they thought of as proper and what as shameful.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  179. The early colonies were equal opportunity enslavers — Stevenson’s “Kidnapped” was based on the true story of a British nobleman who was sold to slavery in Virginia by his conniving uncle — but by the time of the Civil War slavery was definitely race-based. In some states, free black people who overstayed (usually six months) would be enslaved and sold at public auction by the local sheriff.

    As for the Constitution and slavery, who do you think was referred to in “three-fifths of all other persons”, “the importation of persons”, or “person held to service or labor”?

    nk (dbc370)

  180. @Milhouse:The Declaration and the Constitution, which are their official work, contain no sanction either of racism or of slavery, and that was no accident.

    They contain no sanction of killing animals for their fur or meat either. They must have thought vegetarianism proper and meat-eating shameful.

    I have exactly as much support for that interpretation as you have cited for yours.

    There is more than one reason why you might not explicitly express something. One is that you are trying to hide its existence, perhaps out of shame or the desire not to set a bad example. Another, more common reason, is that you take it for granted and don’t see the need to mention it.

    The Constitution makes no mention, for example, of people with more than two legs or more than one head. Perhaps they were ashamed of how many mutants were running around, how they were treated, and wished future ages to not discriminate invidiously against them.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  181. Gabriel, as nk pointed out the constitution referred obliquely to slavery in several places. But nowhere does it say anything that would be understood as giving it moral sanction. And nowhere is there anything linking it to race, although that link had already developed and was commonly understood. This was deliberate.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  182. @Milhouse:the constitution referred obliquely to slavery in several places

    Not disputed.

    But nowhere does it say anything that would be understood as giving it moral sanction.

    Not disputed.

    And nowhere is there anything linking it to race, although that link had already developed and was commonly understood

    Not entirely true–take for example the debate on the 1808 deadline for importing slaves and whether imposts should be put on them. At no point do they consider that slaves might come from Asia, Turkey, or North Africa.

    This was deliberate.

    Bogus. Here you have no evidence whatever despite my repeated requests that you produce it.

    Again, everything you said applies to vegetarianism. Milhouse IV, commenting in the year 2116, will say that the founders obviously thought eating meat was evil and that moral sanction of speciesism was deliberately left out of the founding documents.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  183. There are no references at all to vegetarianism, in either the declaration or the constitution. So there’s nothing peculiar about them. But there are several references to slavery, all of which are worded so as not to give it sanction, and in a way that completely ignores race, even though by that time slavery was linked to race. How could that be an accident? Why doesn’t the constitution just call slavery by its name? Why does it dance around the subject, using all kinds of circumlocutions to avoid that word? And why is the origin of those “persons” who are being “imported” never mentioned? They meant to end the African slave trade, so why not say so? None of this applies to vegetarianism; there isn’t anywhere it ought to be mentioned, so there’s nothing curious about its omission.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  184. Slavery is irrelevant in America today. Our contemporary problem is the assimilation of millions of unassimilable third world persons. Milhouse seems to believe one is an evil racist if he does not want millions of poverty stricken people entering the US who have neither the desire nor the intent to assimilate and become Americans. It is our country and we have the right for any reason to accept or deny people wanting entrance here. This is not 1900 America with a population of 72 million and a dire need for labor and entrepreneurs to develop the nation. We have allowed to illegally enter or have brought in between 30 and 45 million South Americans since 1980. This nation cannot assimilate or absorb that many people especially that low on the economic scale. Plus, now there is a drive to import hundreds of thousands (which in govspeak means millions) from the Middle East.

    Both the South American and Middle Eastern immigrants come from nations with socialist governments or governments that operate at a socialist style. These folks come here with that “type” of government in their minds and automatically cling to the democrat party. So basically we are bringing in millions of future democrats out of fear the current democrats will call us racist. The left imports millions of people on the low economic end then raises hell about “income inequality”. They support the abortion of American babies ( a vast amount of color) and are replacing them with people from other countries. We don’t need these immigrants, they bring nothing to the table for America but poverty and societal expense. There is no upside for America. The only people who should be admitted to modern America are people who uplift the nation, learn our language, obey our laws and accept our culture. If you don’t want to BE and American then you shouldn’t be allowed into America.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  185. Mandela, by his own words, is concerned about the color of people’s skin. He thought a black minority was a bad thing. By definition, that made him a racist and un-South African
    Milhouse ( rephrased )

    I just disagree with your supposedly principled premise for which I don’t think you’ll have a problem with me rephrasing here. Do you really think I want whites to be the majority everywhere? That’s just disingenuous argumentation. You simply don’t change national demographics without wars, holocausts and genocides. If you expect the US to reverse that trend and have a smiley face demographic majority transition, I’ll just remind you that whites, particularly the Anglo-Saxon Christian whites in the US are the most scapegoated national majority ever and they realize it. Scapegoated minorities have very problematic futures and that group knows what that means for their descendants in very near generations. You’re not gonna pull it off.

    jcurtis (9a271b)

  186. Since when did Mandela think a black minority was a bad thing? Did he do anything to prevent whites from becoming a majority in South Africa? Did he say or do anything to indicate that he thouht it would be a bad thing for that to happen? Of course not. There has never been even a prospect of that happening, so we have no indication of what he might have thought about it.

    Hoagie, jcurtis is not concerned about poverty, or cultural assimilation, or political affiliation, he’s concerned about white people becoming a minority. And that concern is by definition racist. No decent person cares how much melanin is in the skin of how many people.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  187. If the people streaming over the border were white, jcurtis (and David Duke) would be cheering them on.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  188. Demographics are destiny, Milhouse. Your whole shtick with the “demographics don’t matter and even acknowledging that demographics exist is racist!!” is the most hilarious thing I’ve seen in months.

    Jcurtis (0ce46c)

  189. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That is America, and if you don’t believe it then you have no business here. Go to Hell, because that’s where the Third Reich is now.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  190. If the Third Reich wanted to invade your country, it would be alright to you because all men are created equal. I’m also pretty sure that you don’t think it would make any difference in Israel if they allowed 20 million new Arab Muslims into their country and made them citizens and gave them voting rights based on your all men are created equal and acknowledgement of demographic upheaval is racist shtick.

    Jcurtis (0ce46c)

  191. If the Third Reich wanted to invade your country, it would be alright to you because all men are created equal.

    No, it would not, because the Third Reich was evil. But its evil had absolutely nothing to do with the skin color of its membership. It would have been every bit as evil, and have needed to be fought, if its members had been black, brown, or purple.

    it would make any difference in Israel if they allowed 20 million new Arab Muslims into their country

    That they were Arab would make no difference. And if they were to become Jews they’d be welcome. If they didn’t then it would be a problem, but only because Israel, unlike the USA, was created to be the state of a specific nation, not of anyone who chose to immigrate. The USA was explicitly not created on that basis. It has always been a country of immigrants and it was built on the basis that it would continue to be so. Otherwise the Indians should be put back in control.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  192. Dumb player Milhouse. Even the most ridiculous elected Democrat or Republican wouldn’t try that nonsense.

    jcurtis (5055ca)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4660 secs.