Anti-Trump rhetoric from the neo-cons really being amped up since Trump's recent Muslim security policy statements. Just ONE example:
"Not to worry. All will be well....We will likely be spared a Trump nomination." https://t.co/6mweIlt2ad
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) December 9, 2015
35 comments:
Not just the neocons - much of the Republican establishment now, and most decent people everywhere. people have had enough with that dangerous buffoon.
Non liberals are fine with Trump on this, and they are the majority Danno, even in Europe.. Just because the overwhelmingly liberal media (93%) and establishment politicians are shitting themselves in no way means Trump is wrong on the TEMPORARY restriction. In fact, he's exactly right on this. But watching all of you liberal toadies suck up to one the most repressive and dangerous religions on the planet warms my heart.
Gotta watch the poll numbers Mal... Trump tweeted that there was a new poll coming out at 6pm last evening but then I didnt see him tweet the results... which makes me think if it did come out it was perhaps not favorable ;)
...I hope he goes 3rd party, even if Hillary wins in a landslide because of it.
Mal,
Looks like neo-cons are using this as an opportunity to bash...
Interesting that Rich Lowry (at NRO not Weekly Standard who I wouldnt call a neo-con but rather a 'conservative') has been Trump bashing for a while but since the Muslim policy statements, Lowry has been LESS anti-Trump and has made a few supportive statements...
so looks like 'Conservative' wing is warming while 'neo-con' wing is seeing just another opportunity to increase the bashing....
(FD: I am voting for Trump if he is there)
Matt, I personally know Lowry. He's very bright, but has lost some of his conservative backbone over the years and thus NR has become neoconish to say the least. I till like him though.
Keep in mind , however, that this feigned outrage (mostly elitist liberal outrage) was present when Trump came out against illegal immigration. Well the elite lost the polling on that score, and most certainly will on this score once the pompous ginned up outrage subsides.
Oh, I'm voting for Trump too. Will be my first Republican or Independent vote ever for Chief Executive.
Ive always voted straight GOP ticket...
This is like a GOP civil war going on with the Trump phenom...
Trump has made some perhaps 'isolationist' statements I think this is what is getting under the neo-cons skin.... with that wing there is always the Israel angle you have to look for... so I think the neo-cons would look at any move towards a US isolationist withdrawal from the MENA region as dangerous to Israel's current position which currently enjoys a lot of overt US support from a national security standpoint...
So imo this recent neo-con outrage is all a big political act... they dont want Trump in there they probably think he would weaken Israel's current security position and that is their bottom line...
I wonder what Rush Limbaugh is doing...
The problem with the GOP Establishment is that the vast majority of their party agrees with Trump on his stance regarding both immigration and Muslims. Trump is pulling this stuff out the air, maybe with aid from polling, rather than his butt. He is attuned to how the GOP rank and file feel, and it's way different from the way the GOP Establishment thinks. The GOP was fine with coding all the bigotry until someone not in the Establishment turned out to be better at it than they are. So now they are all shocked, shocked, shocked, I tell you. What a bunch of BS.
What actually happened is that the Establishment threw the base red meat during campaigns since the Nixon years but only minimally followed though on it when they won. Now the GOP base has wised up and is betting that Trump will actually deliver. this is Trump's basic message and it's working, much to the chagrin of the Establishment.
...I hope he goes 3rd party, even if Hillary wins in a landslide because of it.
That's his not so subtle message to the Establishment if they try to dump him.
Trump is not only a master persuader but also knows how to use leverage.
At first, most thought it was a vanity play for exposure (free PR) and The Donald would drop out relatively early. No that it seems he is committed to taking it all the way, the GOP Establishment is freaking out to the degree they are talking about sabotaging him in some way, any way to stop his roll before he dumps them in the dust bin.
Tom, No bigger bigots that your garden variety SJW's at college campuses throughout the land (professors included), not to mention virtually everyone at the NYT, along with those gals running the DNC.. In other words every liberal alive.
I think Trump would be no worse of a president than any of the other Republican presidential candidates.
Trump also stole Obama's thunder after his terrible Oval Office speech. Notice Trump as opposed to Obama doesn't blame legal gun owners for San Bernardino either. Trump is obviously right on that score too:
http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/search/label/gun%20issues
Facts are stubborn things.
The chief portfolio of POTUS is foreign policy, and his most important hat is commander-in-chief.
The primary question I ask is how likely is a candidate to go to war if elected. A corollary to this is how able does a candidate seem to be able to handle the deep state that regard itself as the curator of US foreign policy across changing administrations.
I would say that Trump and Rand Paul are least likely to risk of all candidates, including Bernie, based on candidates' history and what's been said so far. Rand Paul does not seem to be a viable contender any longer.
However, even though I regard that as the chief factor it is not necessarily the overriding one. I would compare Trump and the Bern overall, but Trump has a big advantage is saying that he is into dealing rather than war. Neither Putin or Xi are interested in war or risking war. Every US candidate, and the US deep state is, excepting Trump and Rand Paul who is not a viable candidate, with Bernie being much cooler than HRC but still hawkish regarding Israel.
@ Malmo
"most Americans agree with Trump."
Uh, no. Maybe most of white suburbia, but not most of America. And definitely not the parts with active frontal lobes and stimulus beyond the flashing teevee. You gotta get out more.
Most Americans agree with Trump on a TEMPORARY ban on Muslims coming into America until broken system fixed. Polled exactly that way and not how the shrill headlines read, most Americans agree.
Most liberals disagree with Trump's common sense proposal. Nonactive frontal lobes are with them en masse when it comes to Trump.
Scott Adams has it bang on imv
Trump has a plan.
Where's your plan?
Can you provide the polling data that you claim shows that most Americans agree on a ban of Muslim immigrants? And how pray tell, would one go about "confirming" someones religious beliefs?
Justin this maybe (just out...)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/12/09/why-donald-trumps-call-for-a-muslim-ban-may-work-for-him-in-two-charts/
This is (apparently) going over very well on the right....
I'm monitoring some twitter feeds on the right and some previous often skeptics of Trump have been tweeting out some more supportive tweets on this topic...
Need more polls to confirm....
According to Bloomberg, the poll — which has a 4-percent margin of error — shows an astounding 65 percent of Republicans agreed with Trump following his initial proclamation. After hearing detailed arguments from the opposition, 64 percent of the voters still agreed with the real estate mogul, suggesting “despite some conventional wisdom expressed in the last 48 hours, [the proposal] is unlikely to hurt Trump at least in the primary campaign.”
Furthermore, 37 percent of all voters also agree with the Republican front-runner’s proposal.
Poll: Two-Thirds Of GOP Primary Voters Back Trump’s Muslim Immigration Proposal
And how pray tell, would one go about "confirming" someones religious beliefs?
Profiling.
If Trump goes rogue, how easy will it be for him to get his name on the ballot in each state? No doubt the GOP's lawyers are going to fight his lawyers tooth and nail to keep him off ... just like the Dems did to Nader.
If I am not mistaken, most, if not all, R candidates have pledged to back Trump if he wins the nomination.
Someone on another blog commented that because Trump has not spent a lot of money, it proves that you don't need billions to win an election. He forgot to mention that Trump is a media magnet. Trump = ratings!
When did Mike Norman Economics become the Matt Franko / Malmo's Ghost circle-jerk echo chamber?
@ Six
It's political season. This is going to last until the election and probably get a lot worse.
True. For the record, I really do value Matt's insights.
Malmö,
What did I say that misled you to believe I love allah? Or any other deity? You're funny when you're mad!
I have some questions for all you anti-western anti-Nationalists.
1. The United States government forced the Mormon religion to give up polygamy and radical Mormon attacks ended. Given this why do you tolerate the importation of muslims who believe that taking 4 wives is acceptable given the biological dynamics of the Western k selection monogamy protected by western law and r selection dynamics promoted by Islamic polygamy? How can this end in anyway but conflict the fact the evolutionary biology states the these reproduction strategies are inherently in competition?
2. Does the Koran require a women to be forced to wear a hijab? Hint: the answer is it doesn't. The question then why do muslims insist on this anti-western tradition. Answer: because they don't want be western and to integrate. So why import Islamic colonizers?
Americans who have the ability to think understand there is no such thing as a "western muslim" or "muslim American." If a muslim are be an American when why couldn't a mormon radical be an American and allow to practice their religion?
The only reason liberals accept the double standard is the muslims are brown people and therefore inherently good people being oppressed and mormon are white and therefore inherently bad and enslaving women.
Quote: And how pray tell, would one go about "confirming" someones religious beliefs?
Profiling."
No, it easier than this. If they are muslims then no entry because they are by definition colonizers as long as Islam is polygamous. Islam is not a religion. Islam is a complete civilization where every aspect of life is proscribed by a tradition. It cannot be integrated for biological reasons.
Liberals are sexual selection denialist and they refuse to believe that culture and economy is biologically determined. All conflicts are still tribal monkey dynamics based on sexual selection and will always be such.
Septeus 7,
Liberals have lost their minds in their hate of Trump. They've lost their collective minds. Muslims are their new martyrs. Incredible.
For those who are old enough to remember Al Capp, I'm going full Al Capp in the matter of three years.
The American left is simply suicidal. Breaks my heart.
Actually, a consistent liberalism recognizes freedom of association as a human right and is indifferent to reproductive choices. Regulation of reproductive choice is conservative, based on tradition.
BS Tom. It is not based on tradition. It is based on math aka basic population biology which you and all new leftists now seem reject unlike the old left who still rationalist.
Polygamy creates a situation where alpha males get a surplus wives and a surplus of single beta males are created and thus serve are soldiers with non-polygamous population. It happened with Mormon and the United States and ultimately resulted in the 1891 Immigration Act which extended a ban on immigrants who expressed a belief in the practice of polygamy which denounced by the Ottoman Empire as anti-Islam but United States wasn't PC then and that law still stands and has never been challenged. Everything Trump has proposed is quite traditional giving the history of restriction periods of American history.
Polygamous populations are always in constant tribal warfare aka Africa. All advanced stable civilization are monogamous. You cannot built civilization on polygamous without doctrine of Imperial expansion aka r-selected Pioneer species because of the selection factors involved.
This not a Right versus Left. The old soviet leftist promoted monogamy and rejected the idea of anything goes mating patterns. All politics is regulation of population dynamics.
The liberal idea is doesn't matter is anti-civilization by definition. You cannot create a stable foundation for wealth expansion without a social foundation of transmission of wealth between generations and polygamy inherently creates a giant inequality and confusion in that process.
All political systems require the regulation of reproduction because all reproduction makes a claim on future resources. Don't tell me you're beyond tradition. BS. You have a tradition aka a polygamy with decays into a primitive polyamory aka the non-civilization of the r-selection strategy. Short term thinking, high reproduction rates, low parental investment, short stature, low intelligence etc...
You reject "tradition" not because you being rational but because you are genetically selected r preferences for low time preference society and literally cannot understand why you cannot civilization around the impulsive "muh dick" masculinity and that is doing all this "sexual liberation" but it comes at the cost stable family formation and two parent households. A civilization built around jacking off instead providing for their children will not advance and that should be obvious to anyone thinking with their big head rather than the small one.
It is not about tradition. It about the fact you don't live a individualist bubble where living your life around jacking off doesn't affect those who concern in their lives isn't immediate pleasure but concern for future generations and effect of your actions on those around you. Liberalism is a tradition of hyper-individualism and short term thinking and you MMTers should reject that notion. MMT is about the idea the the financial system should build around long term public interest and strategic development. It is inherently anti-liberal.
Continues...
I currently fail to understand how any leftist can be pro-open borders and at the same time claim concern about the population and ecological crisis. The population crisis is being driven by open immigration since the physical limits of the green revolution have now been reached.
Once again this is basic population biology. Increases in population is driven by access to food surplus and high amount of living space.
By allow the third world which has a food deficit to ship excess population to the first world you are creating third world release valve that allows them maintain the creation of a an artificial population surplus which otherwise could not sustain itself. The problem is that this artificial growth in the first population which is the direct result of the higher birth rates from that immigration which creates a much higher demand on global resources.
This excessive demand is what is creating the ecological crisis at all levels and keeping the capitalist system afloat with artificial demand. How exactly are you leftists when you fighting for the capitalist of resource exploitation? How are you revolutionaries against capitalism when you promote policies which prevent revolutionary pressure from building and thus creating a potential for a revolution moment?
I think there is nothing "traditionalist" about my environmentalist argument unless you count the desire for ecological conservation as a "traditionalist" and if you think that is problem then you need to have your head examined. The modern anti-immigration movement started with the Club of Rome report and the 70s environmental movement which you so-called "new left" have stabbed in the back with your irrational new age xenophilic and sexual fetishes are you then dare to go around pretend that kind of degeneration has anything to with the 18th and 19th century working class struggle against the capitalist system.
The "New Left" to paraphase of Donald Trump' "It has to go, It has to go back, It can't stay here."
Open borders for capital begets open borders for labour. This is (or was) the position of the far left, who are anti-nationalist and wish to overthrow capitalism.
If we had 'open borders' as they envisioned it, capitalism would be gone by now. We'd have either socialism or barbarism.
The New Left never talk about class. Their version of open borders is related to identity politics.
@ Septeus7
Polygyny is generally a culatural tradition that has nothing to do with liberalism. Polygny was allowed in among the ancient Hebrews and it is claimed to be Qur'an although some Muslim scholars dispute that as a blanket permission under all circumstances. See here .
As far as liberalism is concerned, hetero, homo, and auto sexuality are a matter of free choice as a human right, and free association may involve single or multiple partners, and different arrangements thereof, polygny and polyandry. The state has no business getting involved in this and the state as no natural right to regulate marriage. Of course, the state can regulate contracts, but it should not be saying who has the right to engage in contracts and who does not based on sex, ethnicity, etc. However, the state does have a right to establish age of consent in contracts, as well as to define the rights and protections of parties in general and those of specific groups, such as children's rights, gender rights, ethnic rights, etc.
There are no natural national borders. Under liberalism, every person has the right of free association and free movement, which includes mobility through the planet. Barriers to this right are based on traditionalism.
Another paradox of liberalism arises from ownership of land and the bounty thereof. Classical liberals like Locke argue that ownership proceeds from use, and this bestows natural property rights, including the right to transfer one's property to others. Note that being natural, this predates the state which bestows title and regulates contracts.
Then classical liberals go on to argue that in places where there is no title there is no property right and it is free for use. Of course, this ignores the use of that land for millennia by indigenous populations, as well as the use of the commons prior to enclosure in Europe.
Historically, the facts speak for themselves. Ownership did not arise from use but from seizure and displacement of the traditional users of that land, often with the extermination of those prior users.
Thus, title is not traceable to use but to theft, which voids the title.
Post a Comment