Because I’ve been up to my ears in radical feminism for the past year, I haven’t monitored the day-to-day developments of the GOP presidential primary campaign the way I did during the 2012 cycle. As a result, I am unaware (and really, do not care) which of my blogger friends are supporting which candidate. My attitude for the 2016 campaign can be summarized in three words: Anybody But Clinton. After my (ultimately futile) hyper-involvement in the 2012 campaign, I simply do not want to expend mental or emotional energy worrying about who the Republicans nominate. Others do not have that attitude, however, which brings us to Ace of Spades discussing the latest Donald Trump controversy:
Laura Ingraham: GOP will rip itself apart at convention to avoid nominating Trump.
Krauthammer: Trump’s proposal is “deeply bigoted,” “indefensible.”
Josh Earnest: Trump’s proposal consigns him for the new and improved “Wrong side of history,” which is now “the dustbin of history.” . . .
Ingraham points out that Trump’s proposal comes in a particular context: When the establishments of both parties already want to take him out, and are willing to seize on whatever cudgel is at hand to do so.
They’re not going to beat him this way.
The establishment’s yelling about everything has gone from tedious to exhausting to infuriating.
Read the whole thing. I had noticed, occasionally, Ace’s increasing frustration with the GOP establishment the past year or so, but I guess I underestimated the intensity of his frustration, or his seriousness about the immigration problem. Knowing Ace, he’s the last guy I would expect to dive off into Pat Buchanan/Peter Brimelow/John Derbyshire paleoconservative-style populism which I’m not saying he has, but I think he definitely now understands the teeth-grinding fury the Old Right felt toward the GOP’s constant compromising with liberalism. Insofar as any conservative is serious about defeating the Left, I think, he must eventually experience that kind of reaction. The alternative is to become an unprincipled centrist hack like Steve Schmidt or Nicolle Wallace.
Honestly, I’ve got a Zen-like serenity about the Trump phenomenon. The prospect of Trump going thermonuclear and running as an independent is the worst-case scenario, and so what? He will do it or he won’t. Republicans who want to stop Trump from winning the GOP nomination have to reckon with that possibility, and let them worry about it.
Not my problem.
If Ace is saying “burn it down,” there may be no alternative. It is not Trump’s fault that the GOP establishment is impotent. It’s not Ace’s fault. It’s not my fault. It’s not your fault. That arrogant fat-faced bastard Karl Rove? Yeah, I’m willing to blame it all on him, because why not? Populism needs a scapegoat and he’ll do. So if everything goes sideways between now and November 2016, and Hillary Clinton is elected because Trump went third-party and got 34% of the vote . . . ?
Burn it down, I say, and blame it all on Karl.
Those ideologies are in the United States just as much as outside. Freedom of speech means you cannot stop them until they actually do something. Birthright citizenship means you only have to get one. Ideas cannot be stopped by closed borders.
Then when the welfare state ends, I’ll support open borders.
Oh, he’s “serious business,” too, and he’d make a decent President (I think), but Mrs Fiorina would be better.
My biggest problem with Ted Cruz is that while his positions and beliefs are mostly right on, he managed to piss off everyone he meets. When even other Republicans don’t like him, I have to question how well he’ll be able to get things done.
He’s third on my list after Santorum and Trump (obviously Santorum is a non-starter polling at 0-1%). I just feel strongly that although Cruz is superior to most GOP candidates that people understand he is a politician and part of that crowd (and if your issue is jobs, Cruz is terrible on HB visas) — just like Bernie Sanders is very much an insider. Trump and Carson are the only “outsider” candidates and Carson is getting PAC money and Rove’s call list so… And as for Fiorina, most people don’t realize she has a house in NOVA and apparently does dinner parties with Jeb’s younger brother and that she worked on the McCain and Romney campaigns (that’s an insider).
I long for the good old days when it was considered acceptable – heck, necessary – to show up in the Capitol city with a mob carrying pitchforks, torches and lengths of rope. I believe our esteemed brethren from 200 years past would have corrected this situation quick, fast, and in a hurry.
“The inability of the West to muster up some love of country is bizarre to say the least.”
The answer is actually WWI. It put the lie to the Whiggish notion that Western Civilization had somehow escaped Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness,” and Europe’s colonial population took note of that.
The hypocritical double-mindedness is shown by their accusations of “Orientalism,” first offered up by a Europeanized Middle Easterner who was not at all representative of his own culture.
I’m not referring to the Stormfront crew that was here a while back, but to the circles around Rockford, von Mises, Wick Allison, Unz and (to a degree) Ron Paul.
No clue what you’re referring to. I was referring to Paul Hollander’s Political Pilgrims and Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed. The latter provides an interpretive frame for the history in the former.
“Keynesian cartel”? I’m confused here. Hollander’s book is historical sociology. Sowell has a history as a teacher of economics, but his scholarly work was in the history of economic thought. He may have taught introductory macroeconomics decades ago, but he’s hardly written a word on macroeconomic topics. (And instruction in macroeconomics at that time would not have differed much between Keynesian and monetarist professors – I’ve had both).
McConnell does not care for him. That’s a mark in his favor.
As for Rubio, he has a certain sort of people skills, but nothing else to commend him. Deceitful and comes up short intellectually.
The reason Trump is outpolling Cruz (and I personally, in an ideal world, would prefer Cruz) is because Trump is appealing to a group of voters who haven’t been voting in the past few election cycles and who are rabidly committed to him because he speaks for them. Is Trump going to fix everything? No. Is he going to be a pure conservative in the way Cruz would? Hell no. But right now this issue is A) killing the GOP establishment and B) stopping the post-1965 immigration surge, because if we don’t stop the demographic replacement of actual Americans, a true conservative, in the Anglospheric tradition, is never going to win again. Cruz would be a perfect candidate in an America that wasn’t threatened by the emergence of a non-traditional American majority in the coming decades, but that’s not the America we’re living in and thus we need Trump now. As I said, I prefer Cruz, but he’s getting his votes mostly from the base, Trump isn’t and that’s why Trump might actually be able to pull off a victory of historic proportions.
If someone’s giving out actual quotes then taking someone’s word for stuff doesn’t enter into it.
As long as he gets 34% of the EV, and HRC doesn’t get more than 50%, I can accept the spectacle of Trump as Perot. Let the house vote. It’d be glorious.
Is baseball Manichean? Cuz that has a lot of either-or stuff in it.
I mean, Turkey at the time was a secular Kemalist “republic,” not Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman Islamist funhouse. That said, the Great Turk himself was very involved in finishing the housecleaning of Armenian, Assyrian, Chaldean, and Greek Christians from Anatolia by means of enforced foodless nature hikes (which, incidentally, was a major source of inspiration for another European leader with silly facial hair and an “H” in his name), so perhaps that is a bit more relevant than the sack in 1453. Not to say that the Ottomans were any great humanitarians themselves. (If you’re wondering why my writing style is so peculiar, blame the cough syrup and the cold).
He’s less Perot, more the crazy aunt in the basement. (I love him anyway, though).
VDare isn’t the Nazis, although the Nazis do quote them occasionally. They’re definitely edgy though, probably somewhere on the moderate edge of the “race-realist” community at most times.
More crazy aunt than Perot? Hmm… I don’t see that. Perot was was more ‘Get of my lawn!’ or ‘I’d have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you meddling kids!’ than Trump seems to be.
Oh, I’m just riffing on Ross (granted, my knowledge of him is mainly from Dana Carvey’s impressions of him on his show (the best one-season sketch comedy show ever)). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SSsgCP86HE
“…the Tea Party plutocratic kowtowing faction…”
WTF are you babbling about? That’s like saying “the Marxist Capitalist faction.”
You’re free to visit whomever you like, but that doesn’t mean that you can invite them in here. Other people live here too and have a vested interest. You’re not dictator.
Or in other words, you need to get buy-in from the other stakeholders if you want to make a change.
No on all counts.
There are over a billion people in the Umma. Enough to overwhelm.
Our Constitutional rights do not necessarilly apply to non-citizens.
Birthright citizenship is on shaky legal ground and can be repealed.
Different people hold different ideas, and people can be stopped.
Yeah, I figured that I didn’t need to spell out for this crowd how the Armenian genocide showed that they hadn’t really changed in their anti-Christian character since then.
Well, uh, no. It isn’t like saying that at all, not even in any aspect.
Other than your obvious distraction of the argument with non sequitur diatribe, what precisely you are “babbling” about is unclear.
A free people should either have universal military service or no standing army, because as soon as there’s a difference between the warriors and the people, there can be a conflict between them.
How do you propose to stop someone for having an idea?
Citizenship and immigration are two separate issues.
Birthright citizenship may be on shaky ground, but the fact of the matter is, you still can’t control ideas. Which is the more dangerous ideology? Liberal progressivism or radical Islam? Which is more entrenched?
If there were open borders and no welfare state (Which I advocate as a prerequisite) the flow of populations would be based on work availability. People would move where there was plenty and move back out again when the jobs dried up. Just like between the states today.
So when I say you’re offending me by your speech, you should have to stop? You’re not a dictator. You shouldn’t be able to say whatever you like. You need to get buy in from the other stakeholders before you say offensive things.
Squid, were you an only child? There is a vast difference between bickering with your sister and inviting her bully into your house.
It’s the exact same thinking and logic.
The question is, are we being kept safe or are we being kept jailed behind this fence? If you truly want liberty, how can you stand there and say that government should be able to say where I go and when?
The problem with immigration is not terrorism. A government that is so small it doesn’t control its borders is not worth attacking. The only reason to attack such a government/people is to incite the government to DO SOMETHING.
The problem with immigration is the welfare state. We bring people over here on tax payer money and then we drop them off at the welfare offices. That’s ludicrous. End the welfare state and you won’t have any issues with immigration.
Citizenship and immigration are two separate issues.
This is really important.
Immigration can be restricted by the President. There’s a 1952 law that specifically gives the executive that power.
But once immigrants have become citizens, they have rights recognized by law. The same rights as every other citizen.
ETA: 8 U.S. Code 1182
It has been my opinion for some time that the Republican Establishment would prefer Clinton to Trump, or to a true conservative. They won’t be able to kneecap Trump the way they did Ron Paul. (Paul was too much of a “gentleman”.) So expect that Hillary will be the next President. In all fairness though, could she be worse than Obama? Obama is driven by a hard left ideology. Hillary’s only ideology is Hillary.
That you have no idea what he was disputing with Jaffa tells me you wish to argue about things you haven’t a clue about. You also cherry pick what you wish to dispute.
What Woods was last seen doing doesn’t match your memory. Also, I don’t expect perfection from a scholar. I do expect someone that has the sort of reputation Jaffa supposedly had to acquit himself better in the area he is supposedly one of the leading scholars on.
But, as I said, if you don’t like what he says, refute him. I don’t see you doing it because you are all hat and no cattle.
I don’t know that Hillary will be the next scum bag in the presidential palace or not. But, the question that will be asked and answered if she gets there is who she thinks she has to ingratiate herself with. Because of what she is, she can be far worse than the leftard there now. She’s also just as incompetent as the idiot there now.
I did like the parody version of “Funny Farm” with a Perot impersonator.
The way it’s going, it’s more likely to be AKs than AR-15s.
There are “TEA Party” factions that have been co-opted.
Note what I said: $PLC cherry picks stuff for fund raising purposes. They do it to solid conservatives and Christian Organizations. One can quote things in a way that makes it all look bad. I have read them for years and have seen no evidence of what $PLC accuses them of.
After The Turtle went to CPAC and told the crowd “Give me a majority and you won’t disappointed” then turns around and intentionally disappoints, then who cares what any one shows them other than the door or a noose.
If that’s the choice, I’ll pull the lever for Trump.
I don’t think he got snookered by little Chucky. I think he went along because that was he was all along.
The Dims are thoroughgoing statists, as the GOPe. There are very few in politics today who are not statists.
That’s your point. That’s not THE point.
That’s your point. That’s not THE point.
You’re arguing like an SJW. If you really think just ending the welfare state will end all the issues with immigration, you haven’t thought things through.
You’re arguing like an SJW. If you really think just ending the welfare state will end all the issues with immigration, you haven’t thought things through.
You say Patrick Buchanan/Peter Brimelow/John Derbyshire like it’s a bad thing. Is that so?
Even without the welfare state, there are at least two problems:
1. Peasants will always be willing to move here from the third-world shitholes that their policies created, and undercut our own underclass.
2. People who are passionate about their beliefs will act on them, such as Muslims slaughtering infidels.
Have you never known economic desperation? Have you never known religious passion?
Well, that’s ominous.
Yeah, Obama is lazy evil.
It’s pretty central to what ConstantineX1 wrote up there.
If government doesn’t honor it’s promises to Muslim citizens who are here legally, then why should it honor promises to you? If their rights can be revoked by law, what is protecting yours?
I’m not talking about those who do wrong and should be punished. I’m talking about the people who just happen to be Muslim and would be swept up for no other reason.