This is where the leadership is making a mistake. Again.
Trump will not get better. He does not just step in dog shit by mistake - he crosses the street, jumps in dogshit and then loudly announces this to everyone.
The “rigged” comments are not going to go away. It’s the last thing that Trump has to show that he’s not a complete and total loser. He’s going to ride the “rigged election, biased media” pony all the way to the finish line. And then step in some dog shit, just for good measure.
Very well put. Particularly the last sentence.
Tough shit. They made their bed. If they get tired of carrying water for his latest firestorm, then they know what they have to do.
But they’re not tired. They’re not giving up on the Hitler Yam. He’s still their candidate. They nominated him. They support him. They endorse him. They’re giving him funds and personnel. As long as they continue to stand by him, they (and the rest of the Republican Party) don’t get to act like innocent bystanders.
You are misinformed.
Donald’s website devoted a whole new page today headlined, “Help Me Stop Crooked Hillary From Rigging This Election!”. He wants information from people who want to volunteer to be “observers”.
He hasn’t abandoned this idea that the election is rigged for Hillary. Now he’s calling for randos to show up and keep an eye out for election fraud. I’m sure that will be a huge help at the polling places.
Having his pal Pat Buchannon suggest that armed revolution is the best response to Trump’s loss is not a sign that Trump is backing off his accusations about election fraud.
My heart pumps warm piss for the unprincipled and cowardly Republicans who are willing to abandon their duties to safeguard the legitimacy of the US Government for venal gain.
And yet - here you are, making excuses for the Republicans and downplaying their cowardly and unprincipled behavior that harms the legitimacy of the US Government.
If the right wants to hold non-violent protests because they lost an election, have at it. It won’t change the results.
If they start ramping up the domestic terrorism I hope the FBI, ATF and other groups clamp down hard and I hope the political fallout follows them for a generation.
People on the far right cannot handle the fact that America is not theirs. They do not think any group other than them has a right to run and operate this country. They can’t handle the fact that people they disdain if not outright hate (non-whites, non-christians, LGBTs, proud liberals, empowered women, etc) now make up the majority and are voting for politicians and policies that the far right consider anathema to their goals.
It isn’t just domestic terrorism we need to worry about, it is an a domestic anti-democracy movement. The far right, because they know they cannot win in a free and fair democracy, will push to repeal democratic traditions to gain and maintain power. I think the voter suppression efforts under the guise of fighting voter fraud are just the start. There is a reason some in the tea party believed that repealing the 17th amendment and the direct election of senators was a good idea.
Don’t be surprised if the far right pushes for more and more ways to repeal democracy and replace it with oligarchy and aristocracy with themselves at the helm.
If Pat Buchanan is speaking, and someone is saying he is calling for violence in any conceivable way, I know that person is misunderstood. Thanks for the direct quotes.
Pat is big on Nixon. Adores Nixon. Sounds like he is calling for Trump to win because he believes it will result in a similar “cooling”. I completely disagree with that, but it’s clearly what he wants to happen. Advocating “blood in the streets” is the farthest thing from actual conservatism you can get, especially Pat’s brand of conservatism.
If you think Buchanan is calling for violence, you simply don’t understand his point of view.
Even the most distinguished of the statist left never makes any attempt to understand the right’s point of view. Sophisticated thinkers on the right however understand the left backwards and forwards, usually even better than they themselves do.
That is nice, but Pat is talking about what would happen after Clinton is elected and Trump loses. So, moot point about that cooling bit.
And then there is no way around it, to remove a president from power (and the party she belongs) the intention is indeed to run with the idea that the election will be rigged and therefore illegitimate. And so that is where the quote about “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable” can not be avoided.
Except by you. What we have here is just the old weaseling from Pat and Trump after they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They will say their fig leaves and expect the ones that will cause unrest to keep their original words.
Then why is it, any time a right-wing speaker says, “What the left really wants is…” what they say is not what the left really wants?
Or, more directly, you’re totally wrong.
(“A civilized man may pretend to be a barbarian, but a barbarian cannot pretend to be a civilized man.” Today’s right wing is barbaric.)
Cite? I’m aware that I might be biased (perhaps you have the superhuman power of avoiding such bias), but IMO a few smart and thoughtful folks on both sides actually take the time and effort to get some understanding of how the other side thinks.
Spread the word. Everybody should wear blue on election day if they’re voting Democratic. Then let’s hear these Larry Harmons say that the results are crooked.
“And pepper spray, for if we run into that Trump character.”-Veronica Mars-2005
Very few have strong stomachs.
Trump helped made this test that allows us to see if conservatives thinkers from the right are indeed sofisticated:
First the article with the science and then a link to a video in the comments about a Trump rally:
Woman’s question: “I’m a volunteer with a leading conservation voters group and we want to know about what your plan is to reduce pollution that is driving climate change and endangering public health.”
Trump: “That’s an interesting question. Let me ask you a question… Ok, so we have global, let me ask you this, ok to [hissing and some boos from the crowd] take it easy… How many people, how many people here believe in global warming? [Turns around looks for hands up] You believe in global warming?
Who believes in global warming?
Who believes in global warming?
Raise your hand, nobody? *
One person…”
What fake skeptics deny is the climate change that that warming brings and that it is human caused.
And it is not a surprise to find out that Pat Buchanan also follows the idiocy of the deniers of climate science.
OK, so the test here is: Do you agree with Pat and Trump? And if you do not, why make this issue to become worse for current and future generations by voting for Trump? What sophistication is there being shown by Pat and Trump?
Buchanan is predicting violence if a marginalized minority is defeated electorally. Hardly a controversial opinion. Like I said, you and those like you simply do not understand the conservative position. Pat Buchanan adores Nixon. He is right wing in a very true sense in that he wants social stability and a common morality. These two things go out the window in a revolution. He wants a figure like Nixon to stride across social disintegration and restore national identity. You simply are not familiar with Buchanan’s rhetoric and writing style.
And, like Nixon, Buchanan is fine if white supremacy is a part of a restoration of “national identity”.
We understand the right’s point of view quite well, thank you.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/new-studies-show-liberals-and-conservatives-have-different-brain-structures
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-conservative-brains-are-wired-differently-and-what-means-our-politics
[Nick Cage]You don’t say?[NC]
The problem is that his article is based on a big lie, about the elections “being rigged”.
Oh, I do, and check the links in the climate change post/test, it is clear that you are not aware of the ignorance that Pat constantly spews and uses in his writing.
It is my understanding that it is the opposite. People on the right tend to score lower on scales for curiousness or cognitive integration (ie the opposite of compartmentalized thinking, where you can have opinions that make sense to you but are blatantly hypocritical to observers) while moderate liberals score the highest.
I haven’t met any sophisticated thinkers on the right who I felt did a good job of encapsulating what the left stands for. All they generally offer is strawmen arguments of the left.
What the left generally stands for, if defined by one word, is egalitarianism. Leftists generally want a society as inclusive and fair as possible to as many groups as possible (this extends to non-human groups like animals or the environment). The right generally wants a more hierarchical society where certain groups are above other groups, and where only people high on the hierarchy have access to the benefits available within the political, social, legal economic, etc. system. Leftists generally oppose giving too much power to one group (like corporations) and feel you need the state to step in to protect and promote egalitarianism as well as protect the well being of the weak and downtrodden.
It isn’t a coincidence that most of what the left has done in the last 100 years is been in pursuit of egalitarianism, protecting the weak and vulnerable, and expanding who ‘counts’ to the social, legal, economic and political system. Ending slavery, ending jim crow, giving women the right to vote, making human rights part of foreign policy, non-polluting energy, laws against abuse by police and corrections officers, expanding health care, abolishing child labor, etc. etc.
Jonathan Haidt has written some good stuff about this. The further left you are the higher you value care and fairness as moral values, and the less emphasis you place on loyalty, sanctity and authority. The further right you move the lower the first two drop and the higher the last three increase.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/files/2011/12/viewer.jpg
However the left that the right usually refers to (well meaning but totally naive college students who want to promote an authoritarian social system where it is illegal to hurt anyone's feelings unless they are a cis white male, in that case have at it) are a small representative of the left and many on the left do not agree with their goals or methods.Buchanan is a blowhard but is he saying anything much different from Bernie Bros and Jill Stein? Or the Occupy movement?
Here is my problem.
The conservative opinion is that only they should be allowed to rule, that because of their beliefs, their white skin, their philosophy, etc. they are the rightful and only rightful rulers of America. As a result whenever they lose an election they either threaten violence of claim the election was rigged because they should have won. The idea that they lost an open and fair election, and them admitting that the integrity of our democracy is more important than their belief that they are the rightful stewards of the US is not something they are always willing to do. Many cannot handle having a black man, a democrat, a woman, a liberal, etc. as the freely elected leader.
If the right does threaten violence, it will be because they do not respect or value democracy. They cannot accept that their voices are not the majority voices and that they are not rightful heirs to anything. If you cannot get 51% of the vote, then you do not get to run the country. Simple as that.
As I said earlier, politicians can build a winning coalition out of non-whites, non-christians, LGBTs, proud liberals, empowered women, etc. and other groups that the right (which is made up of hetero white tradcon christian males and their wives) generally look down upon.
Well, yeah, most of the ones you mentioned were talking about using the ballot box for the change, Buchanan is talking more about what the groups he favors will do with things like a bullet box after the election of Clinton.
If political inaction is what they favor, that’s enough for me. The development of fossil fuel technology has been one of the best things to happen to mankind in its history. Climate related deaths have steadily declined as their use has become more efficient and widespread.
I do not support Trump, ok? He is totally unsophisticated. I only support the most sophisticated right wingers, folks.
Hey if this thread is about attacking national identity, I’m all in. Be it racial supremacy, egalitarianism, or a deified Abe Lincoln.
These are cute. They also show no signs of understanding Buchanan’s worldview, especially the premium he places on social stability and common morality.
Is he talking about Diebold machines or the open collusion of establishment figures and their paymasters against the insurgents Trump and Sanders? I think you want it to be the former when it’s the less controversial latter.
Are you telling me that no right winger has fingered egalitarianism as the left’s goal?
Nope. The left is frantically trying to associate the right with violence, and they choose the staunchly anti-violence Buchanan of all people. The church mouse.
Where does Pat figure in this?