Actually, they do. They show that conservatives are scared of everything, especially change, and that they would inflict their “common morality” on everyone whether or not it was that individuals morality. So there is scientific proof that conservatives don’t like science, because it proves they are crazier than shithouse rats.
Most sophisticated right wingers do think that Trump’s position is bananas regarding climate change.
And climate related deaths are not declining. One has to realize that there are studies that already point to the Syrian civil war and the rise of ISIS as being influenced by global warming and the recent severe droughts seen in Syria. The food supply is bound to be affected more with the inaction that you are supporting.
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts/health.html
You want a straw man really.
You are only trying to avoid the context, we are talking about the accusation that the establishment will rig the coming election. There is no evidence for that and the context shows that the idea is to keep that accusation going to incite the ones that will revolt.
“The church mouse”? Please! Pat Buchanan other claim to infamy is to be an apologist for Hitler.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/09/03/pat-buchanan-hitler-apologist/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2009/09/02/msnbcs-pat-buchanan-defends-hitler-again/154154
Thanks for reminding us that you’re a Confederate Apologist. So is Pat:
Buchanan (your “church mouse”) got it wrong. Which is nothing new.
Cardinal Ximinez: NOBODY expects the infamies of Pat B! His chief failure is climate change denial…climate change denial and Hitler apologies…Climate Change denial and Hitler… His two infamies are climate change denial and Hitler apologies…and being a Confederate Apologist… His three infamies are… I’ll come in again.
after reading all posts in this thread , looks like very few took the time to actually read entire article above. ??
just using bits taken out of context.
and didn’t " rigged election " originally come from Bernie supporters ?
weren’t "elites " the DNC ?
etc.
john L I don’t think we are taking it out of context. Buchanan’s argument seems to be thus:
The electorate wants an outsider. The GOP wants to stop Trump because he is an outsider. If Hillary (who is an insider wins) then there will be revolt by people who wanted an outsider. If peaceful revolt doesn’t work, people may resort to violent revolt.
Numerous problems with this argument.
-
Hillary won the primary. She got 16 million votes vs about 13 million for Bernie, and 13 million for Trump. The electorate spoke, they wanted Hillary. And in the general the same thing will happen, the electorate will speak and want Hillary. Buchanan is confusing Trump supporters (who will never accept the legitimacy of a democratic president) and a small minority of Bernie supporters with ‘the american people’ as a whole.
-
Trump is being pushed out by the GOP because he is dangerously incompetent, has almost no chance of winning and will sink lots of state and local GOP races. The fact that he is an outsider worked against him, but the fact that he is a horrible candidate is the bigger factor.
-
Bernie lost. Yes, the DNC was biased against him. But the RNC was biased in favor of Jeb Bush and Bush still lost. Just because the powers that be are in favor of or against someone doesn’t mean that they set the election. If they did, then Jeb would be the GOP candidate and Bernie never would’ve had a chance. All the powers that be can do is tip the scales a bit.
-
Some Bernie supporters cannot let go of the fact that Bernie lost, but that doesn’t mean Hillary stole 3 million votes. In my experience it is a minority of Bernie’s 13 million voters who hold onto these conspiracies that Bernie should’ve won. The powers that be were biased against Bernie, but if he had won 17 million votes in the primary to Hillary’s 16 million, then he would be our nominee no matter what the DNC wanted. But that didn’t happen.
-
Just because the candidate you prefer loses in an open and free democratic election doesn’t mean the election was stolen. It also doesn’t mean you have a right to violent revolt just because you lost an election.
Definitely read it.
It is just a bit of silliness. No the process is not “fraudulent” even if a very few who lost on the Democratic side believe that that can be the only reason Sanders lost and Trump is claiming that the only reason he’ll lose will because “I wuz robbed!” No, very very very very few will buy that.
Will some small number of Trump’s supporters riot or otherwise commit acts of violence after Trump loses? I seriously doubt it but one never knows what a few crazies can stoke themselves into, especially when egged on by irresponsible “leaders.”
But no there will not be inevitable “violent revolution” as a result of Clinton being elected. There won’t even be peaceful protests and demonstrations.
I do wonder how Buchanan and his ilk would have reacted to a Black leader having stated that if Obama lost it could only be because the process was rigged and that mass violence would be inevitable, or McGovern and his promoters having said that for that matter.
What a Nimrod.
Are you asking or telling? Because while Sanders talked about a “rigged economy” early on I’m not so sure that Trump didn’t start talking about rigged primaries first.
Right. If black people talk about how oppressed people might start reacting violently, the right-wingers would interpret that as a threat. So this is obviously more of the same.
It it certainly is funny to see Pat talking about how the system is rigged, when the Republicans have a majority in the house and senate, and control a majority of state houses and governorships. And his solution is to elect Donald Trump?
If the system really is rigged by the Establishment, then Donald Trump won’t be able to do a thing about it.
He may be wrong on other things, but not in anything you quoted. It is absolutely uncontroversial to claim that the war was to prevent secession, and that it wasn’t about “equality” from the outset.
I’m not a confederate apologist. I’m staunchly anti-violence and anti-war. So is Pat. I understand it makes a whole lot of people angry. Don’t be mad.
State apparatchiks support candidate most likely to boost their consulting fees. Who could imagine such a thing.
Yes they are and have been for decades, which is why you have to resort to Stretch Armstronging government created deaths into climate related deaths.
The ultra-statist will find every reason to blame war on capitalism instead of governments.
Climate change alarmists will point to every instance of extreme weather as being caused by man-made climate change. Highly unscientific reverse of the Trump denialist coin.
The 20th century was a period of warming yet climate change deaths still plummeted.
Malthus anyone?
What makes you so blood-boiling angry is that the food supply has increased drastically along with the warming of the past years. What makes you mad is that fossil fuels have kept scientists, farmers, and engineers comfy and cozy enough to make huge breakthroughs in food production that have lifted billions out of subsistence farming. You long for the cooler days when peasants farmed dirt and sweltered in their bed at night, or had to hibernate in groups during winter.
So which is it? Does he think George Soros is planting minions in every polling place of Pennsylvania burghs. If he does, I find no evidence in his article, do you? I think he is talking about the open collusion of establishment types against Trump and Sanders. There is evidence of that in the article.
Rig by electioneering, or media manipulation? Why won’t you say which it is?
There is most certainly evidence the establishment is allied in its mission to deny Trump. There is no evidence of a James Bond style plot, no.
Pat tries to Monday Morning Quarterback his way out of unbelievable carnage and misery. The audacity!
Since I’m being called to defend Pat on every transgression in his long life, it appears to me that with regards to the current hubbub you guys have nothing. Pat is continuing his decades long advocacy against violence and against social upheaval.
It’s pretty hard to read that opinion piece without thinking Pat is hoping for social upheaval when Trump loses.
Pat never seemed to have much of a problem with violence against every day black people or gay people, and went out of his way in his writings to praise Hitler. He just doesn’t seem to like certain kinds of violence.
Cite please.
Do you consider Brexit to be social upheaval? I don’t. Pat favors Brexit, and pleads for a peaceful and democratic means to rid ourselves of the elites in this country. He believes in an establishment, but one that is in line with the attitudes of “Middle America”. He believes the current establishment is dangerously out of line with the rest of the country and warns of what will happen if it continues. I’m not endorsing this view, but c’mon this is Pat Buchanan 101 stuff here.
The apologists of dictators and racists are not the ones who are anti-war.
I could imagine that after all the talk of sophistication you would demonstrate how there is none in your arguments. Good show!
Nope, the droughts and extreme weather was one of the most likely predictions of a warming world, there is nothing sophisticated on embracing the denial of that. And the logic of what extreme droughts will led us.
Not only a non-sophisticated argument, but an ignorant one. As the linked article reports the droughts made worse by global warming are a factor, others do include the bad government policies from Asad.
And only a straw man here also, and very ignorant too, but then not surprising that you remain a supporter of Pat Buchanan. Scientists report that the changes of droughts and extreme precipitation in some regions increase. There is no science on what Trump and Buchanan are advising.
http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/attribution/steroids-baseball-climate-change
Of course, go ahead and show to all how an ignorant you are that I also did criticize Malthus many times in the past, the problem remains that we do have a party that does not even believe in preparing ourselves and making the predictable damage to be manageable as humanity has done many times in the past.
Straw man again, there must be a sale somewhere. 
And so much for sophisticated replies indeed.
The case of Syria (even if you completely take way the influence of human made global warming) demonstrates that it does not matter how advanced and cozy you get, the point has been made in many past discussions is that while in some regions of the earth what you think will happen is most likely that it will not be so cozy in many other regions of the earth. And we can count on the mega xenophobia of guys like Pat and Trump to prevent the needed relocation of people from some regions, meaning that while a climate scientist can not predict what society will do I can tell you as my social studies experience and training tells me what many societies will do by following the “church mouses” like Pat and Trump.
The denial of climate change does lead also to the denial that hundreds of thousands, if not millions will be displaced and will attempt to go to the places where that food production will increase. But the bigotry that is present will ensure that thousands if not hundreds of thousands will die, not much so of thirst, but by the unrest caused for the displacement and to the efforts to prevent that movement of people.
As it was found many times with Trump you are the one that has nothing regarding a sorry defense of a troglodyte. There would be a good fig leaf on what Pat and Trump are going for but what they are saying is not happening in a vacuum, the sorry and unsophisticated excuse that in a case where he is telling us that some groups should follow what Kennedy recommended when there is fraud going on (and once again Pat has no evidence for this really) should be disregarded is really silly once we look at all the past trash that he has published and posted.
And you only demonstrated that you failed the class.
What you are omitting here is what I notice on many conservatives, a blind spot for time lines. All what Pat is going on would be good advice if it was just about convincing people to go to the ballot box to solve the issues.
Pat goes off the rails by insisting that the coming election will be fixed and what the “real” Americans he posts for should do; so, no Brexit situation really. Pat is supporting the political equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater. This is because, until he shows good evidence, Pat is just recklessly reporting on a lie of a point to make his article and then he goes for an appeal to his “real” Americans and to the evil angels of their nature.
Well Brexit passed with just barely over 50% of the popular vote, so it’s certainly hyperbole to say staying in would have been “dangerously out of line with the rest of the country”. And the Tunisian, Egyptian and Prague “Springs” weren’t government run referendums. I have no interest in taking a Buchanan 101 class. I just read this opinion piece and took it at face value.
Just to remark again on that grossly unsophisticated point of yours.
The point there was to show that you would indeed toss the most sophisticated Republicans under the bus, and you did deliver.
But besides more sophisticated Republican politicians the reality is that there are smarter Republicans than that. Scientists that do see the danger unlike the few FUD ones that Republicans like Pat Buchanan are using that are cuddled and paid for by the fossil fuel industry.
The more numerous Republican scientists are discouraged nowadays by the current ignorance that is reigning among Republicans.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS334109598520120222
Pat Buchanan does not mind if our civilization will burn by his recommended inaction. On that issue Pat is like a church mouse that demands that we should all keep quiet and ignore the cat that is coming.
You know let’s have some fun and look at Buchanan’s argument point by point.
- Trump beat a crowded GOP field therefore a Clinton win suggests “there is something fraudulent about American democracy.”
Say what? Huh?
Trump did not win a majority of those who voted in the GOP primaries and caucuses. In fact he got only 22ish% as many voters voting for him as voted for Romney in the general. He got 3.5 million fewer votes than Clinton did.
By primary performance Clinton won. Of course primaries are not the general. Clinton solidly getting the most votes of anyone running in either primary didn’t even get her the chance to be the Democratic nominee if she had somehow lost the delegate race in the process, let alone allow her to declare general election victory.
Maybe he’s wanting to imply adding in Sanders performance? But Sanders also lost, by 3.8 million votes. That result was not massive fraud or vote rigging but for the sake of fun discussion add in an extra million votes for him from Clinton … he’d have still lost and Clinton still would have gotten more voting for her than who voted for either Sanders or Trump.
Well maybe Sanders and Trump together represent the vote for “an outsider”, for something different. The voters don’t care about who the outsider is or what the outsider wants to do. It’s all one thing. Sure it is. But. Um, they together both overwhelmingly lost against votes that were not for them. The biggest vote getter in the primaries was Clinton.
- Buchanan then asks “if, as the polls show we might, we get Clinton … Would this really be what a majority of Americans voted for in this most exciting of presidential races?”
And the answer is of course yes. At least the majority of those who voted. (Staying home voters usually outnumber either candidate, far less significantly so in the general than in the primary, but still.)
It does seem a bit odd to imply that if an election goes the way multiple polling houses are saying it very likely is going to go then there must be massive fraud involved.
- He then makes a prediction/incitement/threat (read it how you will) that “if Hillary Clinton takes power … there is going to be a bad moon rising.”
This is what he expects/hopes for in a country that accepted with only mere gnashing of teeth when a candidate who won the majority popular vote did not become the president based on the ruling of a SC with a clear political bias? The majority did not get what they voted for and many felt that the process unfolded unfairly. Those riots were really something weren’t they?
The peaceful transfer of power based on election results and rule of law has been what has made this country a stable democracy for all this time, even when some of felt we wuz robbed.
Buchanan’s thesis is in support of Trump’s pre-emptive belief that an election that he loses should not be considered legitimate, in support of Trump trying to “delegitimize” our election process and undermining that which girds peaceful transfer of power.
No, there is no even most generous interpretation of what he wrote as being “against social upheaval.” Nor any rationality to any aspect of his argument.