The problem with being a Trumpista
My comment sections are loaded with Trumpistas denying that Trump is a racist, and justifying his claim that the American judge of Mexican descent, which he wrongly called a Mexican judge, is biased due to his ethnicity.
I’m afraid your Dear Leader has once again stabbed you in the back; he’s now agreeing with me that those views are unacceptable:
Trump, who had accused Curiel of bias because of his Mexican heritage, said in his statement that he does not believe “one’s heritage makes them incapable of being impartial.”
Next time before you defend Trump, keep in mind what I said in the previous post. Trump only cares about himself, he’ll throw you under the bus at the drop of a hat. And by the way, after decades of accusing campus identity politics leftists of engaging in “reverse racism”, it’s a bit late in the day for you right wingers to insist that there’s nothing racist about judging people according to the color of their skin.
Why did Trump cave on this issue, as he’s caved on Japanese nukes and defaulting on the debt and dozens of other issues? Because today Lindsey Graham “unendorsed” Trump, and called on other GOP leaders to do the same, citing the “Mexican” judge comments. Trump got nervous. This about face will buy Trump a bit more time, until he once again makes a fool of himself. He just can’t help it.
Tags:
7. June 2016 at 12:58
“Trump, who had accused Curiel of bias because of his Mexican heritage, said in his statement that he does not believe “one’s heritage makes them incapable of being impartial.””
-We already knew that. Jesus, Sumner. It’s not that Trump accused him of being incapable of being impartial, it’s that Trump accused him of being partial. Enough of your truly idiotic Trump posts.
Make America Great Again!
Again, who should Trumpistas have voted for in the primaries? Helloo, Scott? Anyone there?
Trump didn’t reverse himself, and he does not even remotely care about someone as irrelevant as Lindsey Graham. He certainly didn’t “cave”.
And Curiel’s skin color is White.
7. June 2016 at 13:01
Also, strategic ambiguity works:
http://www.gallup.com/vault/192377/gallup-vault-americans-saw-liked-ike.aspx
7. June 2016 at 13:11
Trump is a two-faced hypocrite, kind of like you Scott Sumner. Trump is trying to get elected, just like you, Scott Sumner, are trying to foster your bogus ideas (though largely harmless, money is after all largely neutral) into public policy.
Case in point: Ray says something stupid, and you go ballistic. Ken Duda your benefactor says something stupid, and you fall over yourself agreeing. Money talks, and Trump is just trying to close the deal, just like you are Scott Sumner.
7. June 2016 at 13:14
Ray,
The only difference between you and those ridiculous real business cycle people is that they at least know SOMETHING about economics. There is hardly a better established principle in all of macroeconomics than money is not neutral in the short-run.
7. June 2016 at 13:17
Ray,
And also, apparently it doesn’t occur to you that the fact that Scott allows you to endlessly stupidly troll him in his comment sections speaks contrary to your claim about his aims. There’s not another economist I can think of who’d be so tolerant, with the possible exception of Murphy.
7. June 2016 at 13:20
Neither Trump nor Hillary care about anyone but themselves. I hardly see why this election elicits such passion. Flip a coin, it hardly matters.
7. June 2016 at 13:31
Effem,
Perhaps none of us are smart politically, but comments like yours take the cake when it comes to inanity. If you can’t see that Hillary at least presents little threat of dramatically worsening the decline of our progress as a nation versus reasonable expectations, then I don’t know what to tell you. Trump threatens to do substantial damage to various precedents, while rejecting rule of law, separation of powers, or any legal limits on his power, for that matter. He’s a dictator wannabe who thinks he knows everything and thinks he can accomplish anything he wants. He’s the most dangerous nominee of any party I can think of in US history.
7. June 2016 at 13:44
Scott, the number of senators who are not endorsing Trump is now five it seems (it’s grown in the last 24 hours): Sasse, Collins, Flake, Graham and Mark Kirk. Plus “courageous” Cruz just keeps silent on the issue (a possible 6th?).
And regarding your earlier post and the mirror image between the lefty campus PC extremists and Trump and his cult: you and I are not the only ones to notice:
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06/07/donald-trump-isnt-political-correctness.-political-correctness./
Author David McRaney attended a Trump rally some months back (back when Trump was claiming “thousands” of Muslims were in the streets cheering as the towers came down on 9/11), and he asked Trump supporters why they liked Trump. He then confronted them with evidence that Trump’s 9/11 claim was false. He said Trump supporters responded in one of three ways:
1. They excused it saying all politicians are liars and that Trump’s lies are for the collective good. This was by far the smallest of the three groups.
2. They claimed that the believed Trump anyway, and that there was a vast media conspiracy to cover up the truth.
3. Here’s what he said about the 3rd group:
The Trump rally, very quickly, the third type of person I would tell them about the people dancing in the streets and they would say, “What? That didn’t happen.” Then I would say, “No, your candidate, the person you’re here to see, said that happened.” They would say, “Oh, okay. If he said it, it’s probably true.” The third group of people I was telling them for the first time about this thing and they were incredulous, but then when I told them who said it, they switched immediately to supporting it
This 3rd group sounds like the kind of Trumpista whom you’re addressing in this post.
7. June 2016 at 13:50
” If you can’t see that Hillary at least presents little threat of dramatically worsening the decline of our progress as a nation versus reasonable expectations, then I don’t know what to tell you.”
My arguments elsewhere with Trump supporters say exactly this. These supporters don’t seem to really care about immigration and even voted against him in the primary. Instead they fall back on extreme hyper-partisanship, which the GOP has used since at least 2008 and probably since 1992.
So now anybody, LITERALLY anybody is better than the other side’s candidate. As a recap, the Republican candidate for office has proposed a literal confiscation of wealth to pay down the debt, a single-payer system, has praised “strong” leaders in China and Russia, said he would “open up libel laws,” said he would use antitrust investigation to prosecute a critical newspaper and was open to giving nukes to Saudi Arabia.
If they really sit down and think about the consequences of what could actually happen when Trump is actually president, and STILL think Hillary must be worse than Trump, then I don’t know what to say.
7. June 2016 at 13:58
Curiel delayed the start of the trial until after the election. That was a pretty fair move by the judge. Imagine the trial would have started right now. That would have been the ultimate MCA for Trump. I always said Trump University is one of his major weaknesses by far. And this judge basically saved him by delaying the trial. Still Trump managed to ruin this triumph. Not a very smart move by Trump. At the end of May he stood at 31%, now it’s only 23%. Some more mistakes like this and it’s over.
7. June 2016 at 14:10
You come pretty close. But it goes like this: Anybody is better than Hillary Clinton in the view of a real GOP supporter. The GOP could have nominated a corn dolly. I have no problem admitting this.
But as always with you Trump haters you don’t seem to have a similar ability to self-reflect at all. If you had, you wouldn’t write stuff like this, because you aren’t any better: In your Trump hating view, literally anybody is better than him.
That’s basically the separating question in this country: Which guy do you detest more? Drumpf or Killary?
7. June 2016 at 14:17
@Christian: you are right that both candidates are awful, and I wish the way we picked them would change (how about a British system of 3-6 months of campaigning and that’s it?). You can of course write in anyone you want, or vote third party as I will.
But there is a difference. Hillary is the worst, but in a normal framework. Trump is a unprecedentedly unpresidential (nice phrase) nominee. A serious nation does not elect people like that.
7. June 2016 at 14:24
@CL, no Trump would be better than Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jung Un or Pol Pot. And the list doesn’t stop there. It’s just that I can’t think of a serious US candidate for president at any time in all of US history in any major party that’s as bad as or worse.
7. June 2016 at 14:36
Ok, Trump is a racist. Does it matter? What is his tax proposal, if any? Is Hillary a racist? Does it matter? What’s her tax proposal ?
7. June 2016 at 14:50
“In your Trump hating view, literally anybody is better than him.”
You didn’t get my argument. Trump isn’t a political party.
Not only will many Republicans support literally any Republican candidate, they will support that candidate against literally any Democratic candidate.
And yes, Trump would be better than many people. Not just the dictators mentioned, but the true believers in the alt-right who truly want to end democracy, free speech, etc.
7. June 2016 at 14:56
The MEN in the FBI investigating Hill are biased and should recuse themselves from the investigation…
Come on people…Hillary wants to make women equal to men. She wants to take male privilege away!!! and since we’re so dumb we see privilege as a zero sum game… how can we not believe that men are biased against Hill???
7. June 2016 at 15:06
@Tom Brown
Take Wendell Willkie, Horace Greeley, James G. Blaine and George Wallace for a start. George Wallace’s slogan was: “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
@msgkings
I don’t think so. See examples above. I also don’t believe that people can predict a really disastrous President in advance. It doesn’t work that way. Really catastrophic Presidents are more like a Black Swan. Most people don’t see the danger at all.
7. June 2016 at 15:14
José Romeu Robazzi
7. June 2016 at 14:36
“Ok, Trump is a racist. Does it matter? What is his tax proposal, if any? Is Hillary a racist? Does it matter? What’s her tax proposal ?”
I guess you don’t care that just because of the way someone looks they are 2 to 4 times more likely to get pulled over for speeding..? even though they speed at the same rates as others who look different…lighter
I care. I think it matters.
If you are brown you are 25% more likely to get pulled over for speeding than a white person ..even though whites and brown people speed at the same rates. If you are black you’re 50% more likely to get pulled over for driving just like a white person…
That doesn’t matter to you ?
Its not just speeding in almost every area brown and black people are arrested and convicted at higher rates for the same frequency of criminality as their white counterparts… maybe most famously with drug use…though blacks and whites use drugs at about the same rates… black people are 5 times more likely to be imprisoned for their crimes…
It Matters
…unless a person is lucky enough to be personally shielded by privilege…then i suppose it needn’t matter to them.
7. June 2016 at 15:17
On the wish fulfilment of The Donald. Folk I know who are pro The Donald are sick of having to watch very carefully what they say and to whom, where their job or career can be trashed for breaking language taboos, where folk regard dissent as evil and where policies they think are disastrous (at a civilisation level) are protected by said language taboos.
Which are deeper problems than The Donald, whose success so far rests powerfully on them.
7. June 2016 at 15:21
Actually, that was meant to be a continuation of the thread in the previous post on The Donald.
7. June 2016 at 15:58
“Folk I know who are pro The Donald are sick of having to watch very carefully what they say…”
I have some sympathy for that, but there’s no reason to create a right-wing mirror imagine of the worst of the regressive left emo-prog PC-police campus policies.
Why not split the difference with cultural libertarianism? I think it’s something reasonable people both right and left of center might be able to agree on as a good starting point. Christina Hoff Sommers, for example, is a good spokeswoman for such a position. Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Stephen Fry, Jonathan Haidt, Peter Boghossian, Joe Rogan, Steven Crowder, Douglas Murray, Gad Saad, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, etc, are others.
7. June 2016 at 16:20
… perhaps a 7th GOP senator to ditch Trump? (if we count Cruz’s “courageous” silence marking him as the 6th):
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/279629-mike-lee-trump-scares-me-to-death
7. June 2016 at 16:22
Not to worry though Trumpistas: looks like Dick Morris might want on the Trump train:
http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/06/07/dick-morris-in-talks-to-join-the-trump-campaign/
7. June 2016 at 16:27
Bill, your comment is idiotic and [citation needed].
Make America Great Again!
7. June 2016 at 16:35
Harding, Trump said the judge was inherently biased because he was a Mexican. Trump said he could not get a fair trail because the judge was a Mexican. The fact that you cannot deal with the truth speaks volumes.
The entire world knows that Trump caved, except you.
And speaking of the clueless:
Ray, have you figured out what an AS/AD graph looks like yet?
Matthew, You nailed it.
Tom, I’m pleasantly surprised there are even that many, but then even I didn’t expect Trump to be so incompetent
Jose, Trump’s entire economic plan, including his tax policy, is a stupid joke. Even his own advisers don’t understand the plan.
7. June 2016 at 17:10
“Harding, Trump said the judge was inherently biased because he was a Mexican. Trump said he could not get a fair trail because the judge was a Mexican.”
-[citation needed], Sumner. You are so dishonest in regards to Trump, I can’t trust anything you say about him.
“Even his own advisers don’t understand the plan.”
-If you want to improve the plan, call him and his office. You can be an advisor, and you’ll be one of the better qualified ones.
7. June 2016 at 17:51
@Christian List, you write:
Take Wendell Willkie, Horace Greeley, James G. Blaine and George Wallace for a start. George Wallace’s slogan was: “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
You may have some good candidates there, I’m not sure. I think I recall from High School history class that Greeley was accused of being a “brown bread eater” which doesn’t seem so bad, but perhaps there’s more. Blaine I’ll have to look up. But I was actually thinking of Wallace when I wrote that. No mystery he was a segregationist (I’m not a fan) but was he OK with Saudi Arabia having nukes? Did he suggest defaulting on our national debt? Did he think building a giant wall along our Southern border and recruiting an enforcement squad large enough to deport 11 million illegals was a good use of government funds? Did he seem petty and vindictive and thin skinned? But most importantly, did he display all the characteristics of someone afflicted with NPD? I don’t know the answers to those questions, but I’d guess not. If you put a gun to my head right now and forced me to take a chance, I think I’d go for a re-animated Wallace. A little background reading on my part might change my mind, but that’s where I’m at.
7. June 2016 at 18:00
Are you going to crack down on your comment section at some point? It’s getting pretty bad.
7. June 2016 at 18:02
@Jared: agreed. This Harding guy posts like someone with an IQ of about 90.
But Sumner sees this all too, he purposely puts these Trump posts up to troll these guys. If you don’t read the Trump posts the comments here are still good.
7. June 2016 at 18:48
It’s Crooked Hilary vs Delusional, Dangerous Donald….
At least Hilary can be bought, so she is much more rational and predictable than Trump, who is undoubtedly mentally unstable and unfit on every level. I would you hire this guy to build a dog house.
Anyway, yes Hilary is not nearly as dangerous…
witness the $15K jacket, while giving a speech on income inequality…now that is priceless (excuse the pun).
Johnson/Weld…the only rational choice
7. June 2016 at 18:48
don’t think so. See examples above. I also don’t believe that people can predict a really disastrous President in advance. It doesn’t work that way. Really catastrophic Presidents are more like a Black Swan. Most people don’t see the danger at all
Reserving judgment on the last 40-odd years, there have been two candidates for the category ‘catastrophic’ in the post-bellum era: Lyndon Johnson and Herbert Hoover. For the category ‘bad mess’ Woodrow Wilson, Grover Cleveland (2d term), and Andrew Johnson. As for those in office during the era of the Southern Redeemers (1877-1901), the problem was Congress and the federal courts more than the President). Best candidates since 1970 for eventual inclusion in the bad mess category: BO, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon. Billy Vote had a horrid effect re the President’s ‘chief of state’ role, not so much other roles.
7. June 2016 at 19:02
“This Harding guy posts like someone with an IQ of about 90.”
-If I had an IQ of 155, what would my comments look like? My IQ is in the 120s.
7. June 2016 at 19:06
“but perhaps there’s more”
-Of course there is. He was a friend of the protective tariff and a long-time Republican newspaper man (who also hired Karl Marx) whom the Democrats nominated because they couldn’t find a real Democrat candidate during the shortest Democratic National Convention in history. It was a mockery of the two-party system. He also died before the electoral vote was cast, making things even worse than they already clearly were. If your candidate dies before the electoral vote is cast, you picked a pretty bad candidate.
7. June 2016 at 19:20
@Harding, thanks for the background info. Hired Marx? Wow, a Republican communist brown bread eater?
7. June 2016 at 19:23
So that’s it then, Scott. Prejudging the judge based on heritage is the mortal sin of our times. All of Hillary’s sins are just venal. Her prejudging of “the rich”, Obama’s prejudging of those “bitter clingers to their bibles and guns”; Joe Biden calling Obama “clean”; Hillary’s pandering fake black accent; prejudice against conservative groups by weaponizing the IRS…. Abuse of executive power by him and her; Hillary deliberately setting up a private server to avoid FOIA; Hillary’s prejudice against capitalism except for those who donate to her foundation; Her absolute pattern of corruption; Her prejudice against anyone who scientifically points out the weaknesses global climate models; her disgusting treatment of her staff and anyone “below” her. You continue to blithely ignore the threat to freedom that Hillary Clinton is. Just because she SOUNDS smooth does not mean she is. Intellectuals (I am one) often fall for the “reasonable” sounding tyrant over the uncouth, vulgar person. I get that. Try to step back and look at what happens to freedom if it is Hillary and Nancy Pelosi in control like the first two years of Obama . I will not defend Trump, I don’t need to, but I will not accept Clinton. I await your series of posts on her awful character and policies. Here’s a couple of quotes to get you started:
“We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices…. Government has to make those choices for people”
“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”
“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”
“Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.”
“I have to confess that it’s crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian.”
“He ran a gas station down in St. Louis… No, Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader of the 20th century.”
“We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
“I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers”
“If you want to remain on this [Secret Service] detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!”
“Sorry, Hillary, I was running on C.P. time,” (DeBlasiio). Hillary: “Cautious politician time”
“Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!”
“The only way to make a difference is to acquire power”
7. June 2016 at 19:31
@engineer, you write:
“It’s Crooked Hilary vs Delusional, Dangerous Donald….
At least Hilary can be bought, so she is much more rational and predictable than Trump, who is undoubtedly mentally unstable and unfit on every level. I would you hire this guy to build a dog house.
Anyway, yes Hilary is not nearly as dangerous…”
I wonder if I support crooked Hillary! bumper stickers would sell?
7. June 2016 at 19:39
@Harding: No way you are in the 120s, anyone can see that. Maybe mid 90s on a good day. Slightly less intelligent than your man Trump.
7. June 2016 at 19:43
@gofx: as bad as Clinton is, and she’s terrible, Trump is still worse. Categorically so. I’d have voted for probably 4-5 of the Rep candidates that started out, but the loonies gave us Trump and the Dems couldn’t find anyone better than Clinton or Sanders. Worst offerings ever.
7. June 2016 at 19:45
msgkings, don’t be ridiculous. My standardized test scores, by all measures, are solid. I took 8 (I think) Advanced Placement classes and easily got 5s on all the tests. My ACT test score is in the 97th percentile. And I support Making America Great Again.
“Wow, a Republican communist”
-Nah; just a Republican intrigued by Marx’s ideas. Obviously, no Marxist could ever be made a nominee by any major party. Did Marx support the protective tariff? Greeley did.
7. June 2016 at 19:48
And Trump supporters aren’t “loonies”; they are patriotic Americans.
7. June 2016 at 19:56
Oh Harding don’t be silly, your posts are obviously 95 IQ level. If you really had any intelligence you wouldn’t be so insecure about it.
7. June 2016 at 20:25
E harding says….” My IQ is in the 120s.”
Sure it is… and I bet next you’ll be telling us you have long beautiful fingers too…
7. June 2016 at 20:33
msgkings
I agree, these are the worst offerings ever. I think the calculations have to consider not only the president, but the likely congress and Supreme court implied by the winner. I fear Hillary more, but of course Trump has four more months to im/de -press us.
7. June 2016 at 20:52
While reading the pro and anti-Trump politicos on this blog, I thought that statists (socialists) attacking other, desperately trying to appear as men of principle, is a source of seemingly endless amusement for me.
If anyone wants to know what epic hypocrisy on massive scales looks like, it is in this arena.
Sumner bickering at Trump is like watching Trotsky bickering at Stalin, or Himmler bickering at Hitler.
They all have accepted the belief that people initiating force against other people is a moral good, provided they are wearing badges, and their source of disagreement stems not from reason, but from mere emotions on who has the better idea on how to loot from people.
7. June 2016 at 20:56
@ssumner,
Regarding accusing a judge of being biased because of race, this is exactly what Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s first nominee famously explained. To quote Sotomayor, “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Obama was more subtle about his racism and his racial bias, but he stressed that judges should not be chosen based on legal acumen but rather “people who have life experience, and [who] understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to not have the system work for them.” and that judges should have “the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old.” It’s fine to be sympathetic with African Americans or be sympathetic to outsiders, but that’s not law. Lady Justice Iustitia wears a blindfold and holds a scale because she is completely impartial and unbiased and doesn’t care about what you look like or where you come from.
“My comment sections are loaded with Trumpistas denying that Trump is a racist”
I did not and do not deny this. My claim is that Trump is less racist or more reasonable on racial issues than Obama.
7. June 2016 at 20:56
“Ok, Trump is a racist. Does it matter? What is his tax proposal, if any? Is Hillary a racist? Does it matter? What’s her tax proposal ?”
Here’s the thing. Trump is a racist so I don’t care what his tax plan is. It could be tax plan Nirvana, and he still doesn’t get any thinking person’s vote.
To say he’s a racist is a conversation stopper. Like if you are interviewing potential adoptive parents, the fact that they’re child abusers means you don’t care what their income is.
7. June 2016 at 20:57
@msgkings
-Don’t make yourself look more like an idiot than you already do. And I’m not insecure about my intelligence. Make America Great Again!
“Sure it is… and I bet next you’ll be telling us you have long beautiful fingers too”
-I do.
Trump is a better nominee than the past five Republican nominees combined.
7. June 2016 at 20:58
“no Trump would be better than Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jung Un or Pol Pot. And the list doesn’t stop there. It’s just that I can’t think of a serious US candidate for president at any time in all of US history in any major party that’s as bad as or worse.”
Maybe, though Trump has expressed admiration for most of them.
If he’s not as bad as them, it’s not for want of trying.
7. June 2016 at 20:59
Massimo, I still deny Trump’s a racist. The only piece of evidence anyone has is that discrimination lawsuit back in the day, which I suspect was just the government being annoying to a businessman who wanted to keep his buildings clean and safe.
7. June 2016 at 21:01
“Maybe, though Trump has expressed admiration for most of them.”
-Lies.
Chris Christie and Marco Rubio were actual madmen running for office. Did nobody notice? Good thing they dropped out to endorse the nominee.
7. June 2016 at 21:10
Speaking of Judge Curiel, I will bet $20 that Sumner will say it is racist to point out that Judge Curiel is in fact partial against Trump due his, Judge Curiel’s, own racism. Judge Curiel is a member of the Hispanic National Bar Association. Why would a Judge from Indiana identify himself and his mind as Hispanic? If a white judge was a member of an institution called “the White National Bar Association”, he would be labelled as racist by everyone pouncing on Trump.
Oh, and does it matter that this Hispanic Bar Association has publicly boycotted and has called for a boycott all of Trump’s businesses? Is that not a conflict of interest? Would any reasonable person conclude that Judge Curiel’s views about Trump Unoversity have NOTHING to do with Curiel’s own “belonging” views on race and ethnicity, in this case Hispanics?
Oh but there’s more. Judge Curiel is also of “La Raza Lawyers”. What is this organization? It is an organization with the stated mission “to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state.”
But how can this be? Judge Curiel is from Indiana. By is he associating himself and his mind with Latino interests? To even accept the existence of “Latino interests” is racist.
Yet we’re all supposed to just shut up the pretend that there is absolutely no possible conceivable way that this Judge’s judgment, as horrible and racist as it is to begin with, will be totally and completely unbiased and impartial against a person who wants to build a wall between Mexico and the US?
Sumner you’re a pie in the sky liberal who is only saying the crud you’re saying as a signal to your peers.
7. June 2016 at 21:15
Major Freedom.
You are right. To replace the current narcissistic statist we have a primary choice of two other narcissistic statists of different flavors or degrees. Even the Libertarian ticket isn’t that great this year, Weld is not a Libertarian and Johson is somewhat incoherent or stoned, but at least their platform has some cognition of human freedom.
7. June 2016 at 21:18
Oh and for anyone who doesn’t speak Spanish, “La Raza” means “The Race”.
Just imagine white attorneys from Mississippi starting a legal association called “The Race” with the stated mission “to promote the interest of white, Southern communities.”
Have any of you seen the result of the irresponsible media, and Sumner, trumpeting the “Trump is racist” from their loudspeakers? You have Sanders supporting Hispanic protesters, burning the American flag, saving the Mexico flag, literally punching, assaulting, and throwing eggs at Trump supporters at rallies. Without punishment. The police largely stand back lest they be accused of being racist.
Where is the outrage there? Imagine Trump supporters waving the Confederate flag, assaulting Hispanic Sanders supporters. The reaction would be different. Why? Racism, that’s why. There is racism on both “sides”.
Disclaimer for the uninitiated: I do not support Trump for President.
7. June 2016 at 22:42
Would it matter to the Trumpaphobes that Former Bush US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that Donald Trump may be right to call on Judge Curiel to recuse himself due to bias?
In subsequent news, the PC Nazis got to Gonzales, and now he too is scrambling to avoid being accused of a race traitor and his life put in danger.
7. June 2016 at 22:49
Remember kids, what Sumner demands:
“he’s now agreeing with me that those views are unacceptable.”
Unacceptable! Did you hear that? Those views cannot be accepted. Thou shalt walk the safe, cushy, path. If you find a truth, don’t you dare speak it unless the people around you can take it. If they are weak, then you must only talk about “acceptable” truths. You know, those Rortyian sound bites that are “true” simply because people believe them, and “let you get away with it”.
If you are going to be racist or sexist, you have to do it in a PC, “acceptable” way like Sumner has. Otherwise…UNACCEPTABLE!
7. June 2016 at 23:03
The problem with being a Trumpistas is that you aren’t supporting a person in bed with oligarchs who claim to support democracy, but secretly subvert it. If the following does not make you fully aware that the country’s political system is totally rigged, your brain is defective:
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/06/07/journalistic-malpractice-how-hillary-clinton-clinched-the-nomination-on-a-day-nobody-voted/
https://a.hrc.onl/imageman/2016_Q2-Email/20160605_hfa_graphic/secret-win-V2-060416c_02.png
———————-
Standard disclaimer: I do not support Trump for President.
7. June 2016 at 23:31
Note to idiots:
The difference between a Hispanic advocacy group and a white power advocacy group in America is that Hispanics are in the minority and have historically and still currently suffer from discrimination. Only bigots fail to understand this distinction.
Members of a majority group don’t need advocacy groups anymore than popular speech needs protection.
7. June 2016 at 23:51
Here’s the real problem with being a Trump supporter — you run the risk of being hit in the head with a bag of rocks from behind by some coward while the police do nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC5hWfpkp1g
I can’t wait to see everyone here claim that Trump supporters are all violent fascists when, eventually, one of them fights back against sneak attacks like these.
Freelander: Whites don’t suffer from discrimination? Have you ever heard of “affirmative action”?
7. June 2016 at 23:54
Note to the PC Nazis:
“The difference between a Hispanic advocacy group and a white power advocacy group…”
Is that their racist foundations fail to be publicly grasped by PC Nazis, who do not understand that racism doe not end with encouraging more racism.
Even if whites were in the minority, a white advocacy group would still be racist.
Attacking AND advocating races, any race, is racist. Racism is not just on the attack side, it is on the promotion side as well.
You have a depraved understanding of racism. Racism has and always will be an act of individuals. If a white person is racist towards a black person, then he is racist towards him NOT on the statistical basis of how many OTHER people there are of any particular race. He is racist because of his actions towards the black person. According to your brain-dead logic, the same exact actions cease to become racist if instead OTHER people were of different races statistically and behaved differently.
I know I win this argument, Freelander, because you have no actual challenge, and you resort to name calling. You’re working off your emotions not reason.
Go home, you’re drunk.
7. June 2016 at 23:58
John S:
Did you see HuffPo’s reaction to the violence?
I guessed they and other left wing presstitutes would take the Marxist track and call the violence not the poor choices of people with bad ideas, but something along the line of it being somehow natural, or a part of historical necessity.
And oh look, that is exactly what they did:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-benn/sorry-liberals-a-violent-_b_10316186.html
They called thes attacks “logical”. Like 2+2=4. The violence was a natural course of affairs that we must all accept as inevitable.
They hate Trump, so they pelt rocks at people who are not Trump.
8. June 2016 at 00:21
This is the secret trick of violence advocates. They portray what they really and inwardly desire, violence, as some sort of mechanistic if-then phenomena, so when the useful initiations of violence takes place, you proclaim it as “logical” or “inevitable”, essentially redirecting the attention towards some unnamed, out there, material objective stuff. Don’t look at me! I didn’t advocate for this! I am just the messenger, the prophet, the messiah, etc.
Trump has done it. Sumner does this. All the time. He calls his violence advocating religion “pragmatism”, and “feasible politics”.
Hey don’t call him an advocate of state violence! He’s just describing “the real world” for us ideologues.
And yet, there the violence is whether either of us supported it or not, but I will go to sleep tonight knowing I disputed it, on the side of reason and rational ethics. The old generation are leaving us with dirt we have to clean up.
8. June 2016 at 00:29
Members of a majority group don’t need advocacy groups anymore than popular speech needs protection.
Thank goodness! At least we know that when whites become a minority group thanks to his Open Borders plan, Scott Freelander will finally support advocacy groups on behalf of European-Americans.
Unfortunately, the right to free speech will be long gone due to the Permanent Blue Majority.
One cannot support both Open Borders and Libertarianism. The former precludes the latter.
8. June 2016 at 00:32
MF: thanks for the link to HuffPo. I’m sure many commenters here also believe that guy deserved it.
8. June 2016 at 03:18
and have historically and still currently suffer from discrimination.
‘Sez who, and of what dimensions? The Puerto Rican population was inconsequentially small prior to 1940, the Cuban population inconsequentially small prior to 1959, the Dominican population inconsequentially small prior to about 1970, and the Central American population inconsequentially small prior to 1978. The Chicano population arrived in a broader range of cohorts, but the bulk are predominantly descended from people who arrived after 1965. The segment with the most dolorous social metrics are Puerto Ricans, who are the whitest. All of these segments (bar Puerto Ricans prior to about 1958) have been the subject of federal mollycoddling which was simply not offered to previous waves of immigrants.
8. June 2016 at 03:58
@Bill Ellis
I don’t think it matters if he is racist, for public office. Will he be able to adopt racist policies, regardless of congress and the legal system? I doubt it.
@Prof. Sumner
I really don’t know if Trump even has an economic plan. When Trump was just a mere funny possibility, I remember you criticizing strongly Hillary’s tax plan. Did that position change over time? Unfortunately, the way democracy has evolved over time force voters to choose the better of two awful options. And whatever the new government does on taxes is much more important than if one of the candidates has detestable personal views on race that will never become policies. That is my point. It does not matter if Trum is racist, but it does matter what he will do with the tax system….
8. June 2016 at 04:00
I am no Tump supporter but when a Democrat says we need judges that look more like America is he not saying that white male judges cannot be objective?
Shouldn’t we rather attempt to assess character without regard to race and sex?
8. June 2016 at 04:12
Republicans blew this election when they didn’t get behind Walker. He would have waltzed into the White House had he received the nomination. (He was either 1 or 2 in most polls a year ago.)
Watching some folks in the GOP beating their brains out attempting to justify their nominee is funny. The reckoning is going to be interesting.
8. June 2016 at 04:21
Scott you might be fully correct about Trump’s sincerity. But here’s an interesting question:
If you chatted it out with a Trump supporter who was, a) unusually smart, and b) overlapped w/ you as much as possible on basic worldview stuff what would emerge as the key root differences? Could you list the top 3 points of departure?
8. June 2016 at 04:22
Republicans blew this election when they didn’t get behind Walker. He would have waltzed into the White House had he received the nomination. (He was either 1 or 2 in most polls a year ago.)
I admire Walker, but it’s a reasonable inference he wrecked his own campaign. The salient issue this year is immigration control and that happened to be one issue he’d never devoted much thought to, so he takes his cues from his donors and dithers. When 2/3 of his observable support evaporated, he went home.
8. June 2016 at 04:49
@Art Deco
Walker certainly could have run a better campaign. The breadth of candidates in the primary process was somewhat of a perfect storm to keep his understated style from being successful. I blame Jeb and his supporters more than Walker. And speaking of those Jeb! supporters, what were they thinking, backing such an insider/establishment candidate this cycle.
Lost opportunity by the GOP.
8. June 2016 at 04:51
Unfortunately, the way democracy has evolved over time force voters to choose the better of two awful options.
Elections tell you, in a vague sort of way, what people will put up with, and not a whole lot more. John Kennedy remains retrospectively admired, even though it’s a matter of public knowledge that the man was pond scum. Bilge Clinton is less of a transgressor than was Kennedy, but he’s also oleaginous in ways Kennedy was not; his grossness is obtrusive. He’s still retrospectively admired not only by the man in the street but by the elite sorts who issue speaking invitations. He’s even successfully ingratiated himself with the Bushes, who should know better. (One thing I like about Jimmy Carter is that he gives the Hot Springs Lounge Lizard the brush off).
If you were to tell people like my mother and father in 1958 how the next 30 years would unfold, they’d have thought you mad with pessimism. My mother’s contemporaries behaved well all their lives, but many were so conventional in the dictionary sense that they grew irritated and impatient in their old age with friends and family disgusted with the common-and-garden behavior of succeeding cohorts. People who meticulously observed certain norms and contributed to the well-being of the world around them grew to be enablers of utter cheesiness, things they never would have thought of doing themselves.
If someone like Ryan Anderson or Robert George or James Hitchcock were issuing dismayed animadversions about Trump (and they likely have), I’d respect that. It’s quite consistent with their general worldview. When you have complaints from the usual sort of faculty twit whose advocacy has not one word for virtue or civic spirit, and, quite often, has been devoted to excusing lowlifes while branding ordinary people as pathological, it’s pretty disgusting. If you did not utter a complaint when your school issued a $189,000 honorarium to Bilge Clinton, kindly STFU about anyone else’s vulgarity. If you’ve responded to the harrassment of authentic dissidents on your faculty with indifference, cowardice and superciliousness, at least have the decency to quit trying to appropriate their street cred.
The adults left the room in 1960. The adolescents with jobs and clean driving records left the room in 1992. We live halfway between Castro Street and Pottersville. That’s an ineluctible consequence of everything the faculty and the media and the establishment bar have advocated over five decades. Suck it up.
8. June 2016 at 05:06
José Romeu Robazzi
8. June 2016 at 03:58
“@Bill Ellis
I don’t think it matters if he is racist, for public office. Will he be able to adopt racist policies, regardless of congress and the legal system? I doubt it.”
Gee, you seem to be pretty clueless about the power of the american presidency to effect race policy… If you weren’t you wouldn’t have any doubts. You should take a civics 101 class somewhere beside fundamentalist homeschooling …
8. June 2016 at 05:10
@ José Romeu Robazzi.
It is nice to know that you’re the rare conservative that doesn’t think Obama made race relations worse in america and helped black people at the cost of white folk…
Right ? …props to you for that.
8. June 2016 at 05:22
remember when the hispanic advocacy groups lynched people…shot up churches…kept an entire race of people from their constitutional right to vote for about 100 years by terrorism… and then blew up the federal building in OK..???. And are still shooting up churches…
Make america great again !!!
8. June 2016 at 05:22
@Floccina,
“I am no Tump supporter but when a Democrat says we need judges that look more like America is he not saying that white male judges cannot be objective?”
Yes. The Sotomayor quote I gave earlier in this thread is much more explicit. As are the Obama quotes.
“Shouldn’t we rather attempt to assess character without regard to race and sex?”
Lady justice wears a blindfold for a reason.
8. June 2016 at 05:29
wow i’ve be away from this comments section for a long time.. it always had its share of self deluded racists good at cherry picking data to keep themselves from seeing the truth in front of their noses… but it’s clear that the Trump candidacy has filled this cesspool with a new abundance of truds…
8. June 2016 at 05:30
@Major.Freedom
“Standard disclaimer: I do not support Trump for President.”
Why not? I agree with everything else you’ve wrote. Trump isn’t perfect, but you are clearly aligned with the Trump side more than the Hillary side.
8. June 2016 at 05:42
Floccina,
Can you really be that ignorant? No, white judges are never prejudiced. The Dred Scott decision never happened. Nothing to see here.
8. June 2016 at 05:43
Let me break this down for the racists here. Racism never, ever,ever goes away. It’s unfortunately a default state of being for many, with a biological basis. Hence, there always have to be various mechanisms to protect minorities.
8. June 2016 at 05:48
“Thank goodness! At least we know that when whites become a minority group thanks to his Open Borders plan, Scott Freelander will finally support advocacy groups on behalf of European-Americans.”
No, I would only favor whites organizing if white Europeans organizing if it was specifically white Europeans who became regular targets of discrimination by some majority.
Racists like you just assume they will be victims, because you’re racist yourself, and project that onto others, most of whom don’t even have racist thoughts. Not all of us are racists.
8. June 2016 at 05:48
@Art Deco
Wow, your anger is self evident. “The good old days”, right.
No thanks. I’ll take today over 1958 any day of the week.
8. June 2016 at 06:10
@ José Romeu Robazzi..
I don’t think much good of W Bush’s presidency… But one area I do have deep appreciation and respect for him is in the way he defended Muslims and islam after 911.
There is no doubt in my mind that if had lacked wisdom, or a courage to back up that wisdom…if had had been a trump …we would have had a de facto widespread selective suspensions of habeas corpus and rounded up a lot of innocent muslim and arab americans..
8. June 2016 at 06:19
No thanks. I’ll take today over 1958 any day of the week.
Lessee: 1.3 million abortions per year, 39% of children born as bastards, expressive divorce, post-adolescent and young adult years consumed with train-wreck ‘relationships’ and random sex acts, schooling at all levels suffused with humbug, bloated and silly tertiary institutions sorting the labor market, the ruin of freedom of contract and association, the sacralization of sodomy and its practitioners, the omnipresence of pornography, and general crime rates 40% higher than they were back then (with this level of order made possible by assiduous investments in law enforcement which libertarians trash), and fat swaths of the population taking psychotropics. You’ll take that?
8. June 2016 at 06:20
In 1958, popular music mean Brubeck, and, for the younger set, Richie Valens. Now it runs the gamut from Katy Perry to that anti-music called ‘rap’ or ‘hip hop’. Oh happy day.
8. June 2016 at 06:37
@ José Romeu Robazzi..
Executive Order 9066. Sure, FDR could not have done it without a compliant congress, courts and a frightened public…
But he could have stopped it..instead he led the effort..
FDR is in my top three of american presidents… But when it comes to having the courage to stand up for a scapegoated minority at a time of national crisis… W puts FDR to shame..
8. June 2016 at 06:40
Bill,
In fairness to FDR, World War II was a much bigger crisis than all of the terrorist attacks in the history of the world, by far. There’s no excuse for what FDR did, but we lost a good bit more people in the Pearl Harbor attack lone than in the 9/11 attacks. Americans today are just cowards.
8. June 2016 at 06:43
@ Art deco…”Born as bastards” ???
that’s offensive as hell.. But don’t worry just play your PC card…it gives you permission to be a dick…right ? It invalidates my taking offence at you…
Because ??? only your indignation is valid… Just like it always used to be…
Make america great again !!!
8. June 2016 at 06:55
The problem with being a military-industrial complex-ista: “justifying his claim that the American judge of Mexican descent, which he wrongly called a Mexican judge”
SMH: people frequently ask me if I am “Irish”. I say “yes.” I don’t go into a pedantic fit about how I am “Irish-American.”
X is used as shorthand for X-American ALL THE TIME.
8. June 2016 at 06:56
that’s offensive as hell.
Poor little diddums.
8. June 2016 at 06:58
but we lost a good bit more people in the Pearl Harbor attack lone than in the 9/11 attacks.
We did not. Also, the casualties at Pearl Harbor were in the military. The civilian death toll was in two digits, not 4 digits as on 9/11.
8. June 2016 at 07:01
But when it comes to having the courage to stand up for a scapegoated minority at a time of national crisis…
Just who ‘scapegoated’ the domestic Muslim population? The one set of complaints which had wide currency and were uttered outside internet comboxes concerned the flimflam Imams plans for a Muslim community center at Ground Zero. (You’ll notice there isn’t a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor).
8. June 2016 at 07:23
“Harding, Trump said the judge was inherently biased because he was a Mexican. Trump said he could not get a fair trail because the judge was a Mexican. ”
Scott, the fact that you have to MAKE UP your own version of what Trump said, rather than quote him, speaks volumes. What you quote in the post itself is 100% consistent with his original remarks.
8. June 2016 at 07:41
@ Art deco.. “anti-music called ‘rap’ or ‘hip hop’. Oh happy day.”
Why not just call it “degenerate art” ?
So what gives you the right to claim what is good music and what isn’t ?
Tradition ? Privlage?
How about Coltrane, Miles and Eric Dolphy ? Is their greatest work music to you? I doubt you can dig it..
8. June 2016 at 07:45
Trump’s cult.. Doubleplusgoodrigththinkers..
George Orwells, doublethink is:
“ To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.[” Wiki..
8. June 2016 at 07:55
Gene Callahan is right. Sumner has no regard for the truth regarding Trump.
8. June 2016 at 08:06
@Bill Ellis,
“I guess you don’t care that just because of the way someone looks they are 2 to 4 times more likely to get pulled over for speeding..?”
There is plenty of studies and evidence that completely debunk this:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/racial-profiling-myth-debunked-12244.html
8. June 2016 at 08:19
Here is my view on this entire issue:
Clinton is bad, but it is a bet with low volatility, so you get an almost guareteed bad thing.
Trump is bad, but with high volatility, so, there is a small chance he surprises on the upside.
Also, people step up to the plate, therefore once in office they abandon their most debatable ideas (no room to defend this view, but one can find evidence in the history books).
My feeling is that estimates about Clinton are mildly biased to the positive side, and estimates about Trump are heavily biased on the negative side. Therefore, the conditional probability that a Trump government will be much better than expected is actually not so bad. On the other hand, the probability that people will be disappointed by Clinton are mildly positive.
8. June 2016 at 08:20
@ Art deco..
Pearl harbor is a military base.. how many non secular “shrines” are there…there ?
And why shouldn’t any americans of any faith not be allowed to have a community center in a place where any other group of non criminal americans would be welcome to have a community center…??
there is only one answer…its their race/religion. you want to take away the rights of your fellow americans based on the fact that some small % of the people that share their identity are criminals..
You advocate paliny for discrimination and don’t seem to see it. You actually defend it proudly with out seeing what it is…
“… to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy,…”
8. June 2016 at 08:27
@E. Harding,
“Massimo, I still deny Trump’s a racist. The only piece of evidence anyone has is…”
Trump doesn’t hate other races or do anything terrible. But Trump has normal racial biases that most normal people have. He perceives himself as a white American, and is biased in favor of that. This subtle bias generally can’t be proven. He definitely has plausible deniability.
Obama has more of a pronounced racial bias. He’s invested much of his life into black racial activism, he was a very devout member of a church founded upon “Black Liberation Theology”. While president, he has done many not so subtle actions to shift jobs, wealth, status, and power explicitly along racial lines from whites to blacks.
Also, dictionaries are a flawed authority on the meaning of words like “racism” and “bigotry”. Those words have very complex emotionally charged common usages, and most dictionaries haven’t invested serious effort in capturing and documenting that. I am not trying to make or advance my own definitions, I’m trying to recognize widely used meanings that aren’t properly captured in dictionaries. To many “racist” is just saying something that is outside of their comfort zone.
I do think it’s wildly hypocritical that people are criticizing Trump on this without criticizing Sonia Sotomayor’s more blatantly racist comments.
8. June 2016 at 09:13
Here’s a sure way to tell if someone is a racist.. They are breathing.
When I hear someone denying that they are racist i think…then your not human.
There is a huge difference between feeling in your heart that you wouldn’t do anything to hurt someone because of their differences…and not recognizing that racism is a real and unavoidable condition of humanity….humans are generalizing machines of a high order..
We all make snap judgements all the time about everything …including race..
The best we can do is admit to our weakness in perception and be vigilant to the cruel and unfair influence it DOES have on us all..
The problem isn’t really racism… The problem is when we let it blind us…And if we don’t even own up to it… we can’t even see that it happens to us.
saying Trump isn’t a racist is like saying he’s not human… The issue is how he is using our inborn receptivity to racism …
8. June 2016 at 09:34
Why not just call it “degenerate art” ?
Because that’s not my idiom. (And, while we’re at it, ‘hip hop’ is wordplay, not art).
So what gives you the right to claim what is good music and what isn’t ?
I live and breathe, Bill. I need no permission from you to offer opinions.
For my father’s contemporaries, and for the generation proceeding, jazz was not a niche taste, although it was on top only from about 1933 to 1945.
8. June 2016 at 09:43
Pearl harbor is a military base.. how many non secular “shrines” are there…there ?
It was a naval base. There’s a museum there. I haven’t been there since 1978, so I cannot recall everything that’s there.
And why shouldn’t any americans of any faith not be allowed to have a community center in a place where any other group of non criminal americans would be welcome to have a community center…??
Because it’s perfectly tasteless to put one there and no one would have suggested it if they were not engaged in an end zone dance, that’s why.
The Imam in question is an immigrant from Kuwait with a familiar set of red-haze political views to which he gave voice within weeks of 9/11. Read The Nation or Mother Jones or the more repellant issues of New York Review of Books and you’ll see them there. Read Thomas Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed or Paul Hollandar’s Political Pilgrims for a more elaborate exigesis. He’s spent 30-odd years running a small mosque in the financial district. He’s not retooling to enter real estate development. People do not undertake dramatic new ventures in their 60s. He was fronting for someone else.
There’s an Orthodox Church near there which had been attempting to rebuild for the better part of a decade and got nothing from obstruction from the Bloomberg Administration even as Bloomberg and company were attempting to grease the skids for the flimfalm Imam.
8. June 2016 at 10:00
Art deco… Tell me “O” great sage of all things esthetic…
what is art ?
You are a sophomoric poser who has no clue of the vale of art beyond what makes you instantly comfortable…
I pity your narrowness of mind…the world of art is full of riches…more varied and better crafted than at any time in our history…
good art is so commonplace now that it’s lost monetary value… You can find a gallery in any large city in the world and find NEW art of comparable skill to much of what is revered as the art from historic painting pinnacles of earlier eras.. If you could transport this art through time to say.. the renaissance …it would be as revered today by us as anything else from the period..
But you can by work of this quality in any big city in the world for about 1000 bucks…
get over yourself… aesthetically there has never been a better time to be alive… Your choices are not diminished in number or quality by mine… why do you denigrate mine and wish for a time where they did not exist ?
Facist much ?
8. June 2016 at 10:02
Welllll what you find tasteless should be bowed down to…
While what others find tasteless is just PC that victimizes you…
I so sorry for you…. the things you endure.. MY heart has an owwie…
8. June 2016 at 10:33
Everyone, Yes, I’m sure Trump’s statements were not racist. All these conservative Republican officials saying it was racist probably just came out of a campus “diversity retreat” and have been brainwashed.
Brendan, You said:
“If you chatted it out with a Trump supporter who was, a) unusually smart, and b) overlapped w/ you as much as possible on basic worldview stuff what would emerge as the key root differences? Could you list the top 3 points of departure?”
I’ve never met anyone like that, so I don’t know. The smart people I read (Tyler Cowen, etc.) don’t seem to like Trump.
Bill, You said:
“wow i’ve be away from this comments section for a long time.. it always had its share of self deluded racists good at cherry picking data to keep themselves from seeing the truth in front of their noses… but it’s clear that the Trump candidacy has filled this cesspool with a new abundance of truds…”
I’ve learned a lot about Trump supporters by reading the comment section.
Jared, All I need to do is stop talking about Trump and it gets much better. I’ve encouraged people to ignore my Trump posts and read my monetary policy posts.
Gene, You said:
“SMH: people frequently ask me if I am “Irish”. I say “yes.” I don’t go into a pedantic fit about how I am “Irish-American.””
You may not care, but I’m guessing that the Americans that FDR wrongly called “Japanese” and put in concentration camps understood the distinction.
I know, that has nothing to do with Trump, except that Trump is the only Presidential candidate I know who refuses to condemn that action. I wonder why?
8. June 2016 at 11:11
Gene, You said:
“SMH: people frequently ask me if I am “Irish”. I say “yes.” I don’t go into a pedantic fit about how I am “Irish-American.””
How about if there was a case about prohibition and a candidate insisted that an irish judge recuse himself because…you know..”glug glug”…and what if that description found some significant currency with public opinion ?
I say if you’re irish and not gonna throw a fit over something like that… you’re kinda dumb.
8. June 2016 at 11:19
Scott says….”I’ve learned a lot about Trump supporters by reading the comment section.”
I actually respect that a lot…sincerely.
8. June 2016 at 11:24
You can find a gallery in any large city in the world and find NEW art of comparable skill to much of what is revered as the art from historic painting pinnacles of earlier eras..
Meanwhile, back in the real world, I just attended the graduation exercises of the Maryland Institute College of Art, which, I’m told by U.S. News ranks 9th in the country as a purveyor of studio art instruction. This included exhibits of the graduating seniors’ work. I’m told by my entourage that the kids in the graphic arts program produced some interesting material. Somehow I missed it. Some of the illustration students produced workmanlike artifacts, what I’d expect of contemporaries of mine who hung out in art studio in high school. I missed the work of the drawing students because only about 2% of their graduates concentrate in drawing. From there on it was all downhill. Easily 90% was embarrassing and exhibited no skill you’d care for anyone to have. I cannot figure if they recruit students who have no aptitude or they try to suppress their efforts to produce representational work. The private college I know best had a crap studio art program. Bad business, but one institution cannot be good at everything and I suspect their art history faculty was quite satisfactory. This wasn’t a collegiate program populated with students who couldn’t think of anything better to do in the academic programs. These kids supposedly had talent to develop. Which they certainly were not doing there.
The whole scam is the saddest goddamned thing.
8. June 2016 at 11:35
I actually respect that a lot…sincerely.
If you stick around a while, you’ll discover that the moderator has no serious engagement with anyone not identifiable as a professional economist. So, no, he is not actually learning anything from these discussions.
8. June 2016 at 12:03
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/01/judge-presiding-over-trump-university-case-is-member-of-la-raza-lawyers-group/
Curiel has some sketchy associates. That aside, he’s kind of a hack, or a hack with connections. He had ten years working for small common-and-garden firms founded by others before landing a job as a federal prosecutor. He remained a staff prosecutor in U.S. Attorney’s offices for 17 years until he was appointed to a Superior Court vacancy by Ahnuld. Not sure he ever ran for election before getting that patronage nod from Eric Holder’s “Justice” department.
8. June 2016 at 12:03
Art Deco…wow basing your opinion of the state of the art world on the works of new grads from art school….of studio art… Studio art is supposed to be commercially efficient.. That doesn’t mean it not great…it just means it scope is narrow by definition… its impossible to judge the state of the art world in any rational way through this very narrow example… “I cant believe I have to explain this to such an art expert…”
Your inability to see past your personal experience makes you kinda an experiential mr magoo..
I don’t doubt that there was a lot of very high quality work that was simply over your head…out of your small comfort zone…
Anyway I sure the art department at the… “Maryland Institute College of Art, which, I’m told by U.S. News ranks 9th in the country” …will be just devastated when they learn of your authoritative critique of their work… Big sads
8. June 2016 at 12:05
“All these conservative Republican officials saying it was racist probably just came out of a campus “diversity retreat” and have been brainwashed.”
-Exactly, Sumner. Now you’re starting to get it.
https://twitter.com/DemsRRealRacist/status/740255186237558784
https://twitter.com/DemsRRealRacist/status/740366444408410112
And I am, by all indicators I’ve seen that actually predict intelligence, not merely diligence, smarter than Tyler Cowen. The fact he has managed to fool you into making you believe he’s smart does not indicate his intelligence, but, rather, his self-control. Again, there is no evidence I’ve seen that Tyler is anywhere smarter than ~130 IQ. And I’m being generous to Tyler. I estimate Art Deco’s IQ to be higher than mine, and in the high 130s, if not higher. I estimate your IQ to be in the 140s, due to your ability to cut the Gordion’s knots that complicate monetary policy, while Tyler keeps making turds of posts like these:
If only you’d read, and not assume based on degree…
“good at cherry picking data to keep themselves from seeing the truth in front of their noses”
-This is a good description of anti-racists, not racists.
“I’ve encouraged people to ignore my Trump posts and read my monetary policy posts.”
-Just like Scott Adams has endorsed Hillary Clinton.
“Trump is the only Presidential candidate I know who refuses to condemn that action. I wonder why?”
-I’ve never seen Bernie or Hillary condemn it. Did Obama condemn it? Bush?
Make America Great Again!
8. June 2016 at 12:06
Art deco…go to a museum of modern art in almost any big city…
8. June 2016 at 12:30
its impossible to judge the state of the art world in any rational way through this very narrow example…
These are your human resources. Good luck with them.
I go to art exhibits every once in a while. Not motivated to see anything recent. I did some time ago attend an exhibition at the University of Washington. Highlights were some dried flowers scattered on a table. Oh, some words from John Derbyshire:
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/the-nincompoop-prize/
8. June 2016 at 12:53
arty deco… I saw this and thought of you…
http://boingboing.net/2016/06/07/weaponized-shirt-for-demoraliz.html
8. June 2016 at 13:43
“he is not actually learning anything from these discussions.”
…said the oblivious lab rat .
8. June 2016 at 15:16
Oh boy, Bill Ellis:
1) Someone says, “No Irish judge can be trusted to judge fairly in a case involving an IRA terrorist.”
That is racist.
2) Someone says, “Callahan, who we know is Irish and has said sympathetic things about the IRA, can’t be trusted to judge fairly in a case involving an IRA terrorist.”
That is NOT racist. It might be slander (should it not happen to be true), but it is not racist.
See the difference? Trump was doing #2.
8. June 2016 at 17:20
Scott Freelander:
You are showing everyone here with your posts on how to be racist in a politically correct way.
“No, I would only favor whites organizing if white Europeans organizing if it was specifically white Europeans who became regular targets of discrimination by some majority.”
This is a racist comment. You can’t yet see it, because you are racist.
The reason your comment here is racist is that you are justifying the morality of A’s actions against B, not based on the action and individuals themselves as individuals only, but in terms of what race the actors belong to. The same action of A against B is treated by you as racist or not racist on the basis of the groups they belong to. A’s actions against B is racist if A belongs to a group, a race, that is statistically a majority and where some percentage of others in that same group are racist. If on the other hand A belongs to a group, a race, that is statistically a minority and where some percentage of others in that same group are victims of racism, then A’s actions are not racist.
In other words, you are judging an individual’s actions as racist or nor racist, based on a racist view to your own. This is why you are racist.
At some point hopefully you will learn, improve, and with enough education, you will cease to have racist views.
A person who is racist against another, is racist against them as individuals. What others do in their respective races is irrelevant. Since your view of the same individual doing the same action is deemed racist or not racist based on their own skin color, for example a white person in a white majority or a black person in a black majority, that is itself a racist view of that person doing the action.
Most racists believe they are “helping” and “defending”. You are no different.
8. June 2016 at 19:36
Gene Callahan says….”Oh boy, Bill Ellis:
1) Someone says, “No Irish judge can be trusted to judge fairly in a case involving an IRA terrorist.”
That is racist.
2) Someone says, “Callahan, who we know is Irish and has said sympathetic things about the IRA, can’t be trusted to judge fairly in a case involving an IRA terrorist.”
That is NOT racist. It might be slander (should it not happen to be true), but it is not racist.
See the difference? Trump was doing #2.”
Nope they are both racist…Now if trump had said….“Callahan has said sympathetic things about the IRA, SO he can’t be trusted to judge fairly in a case involving an IRA terrorist.”… now that wouldn’t have been racist… See the difference ?
Anyway its actually more like saying a judge who has sympathies with the IRA can’t give you a fair hearing on your scam business because you sympathized with the Protestants… A judge can have political views that conflict with the people arguing a case in his court.. and still be impartial…infact it happens MOST of the time…
8. June 2016 at 20:18
@Gene Callahan, you are right.
Sonia Sotomayor made more overtly racist comments and later back peddled and downplayed. Obama was more careful with his words, but still shows strong racial bias.
9. June 2016 at 08:21
Ironic that Art knows so little about art.
9. June 2016 at 08:43
Ironic that Art knows so little about art.
What you ‘know’ about ‘art’ is about as valuable as what Nancy Reagan knew about astrology.