For example, people who voted for Trump are simply diagnosed as ignorant or uneducated, regardless of the inconvenient truths which can explain their support for Trump.

Trump's whole shtick was 'f*** you'. 'You say I can't complain about Mexicans? Well, f*** you.' That is how he won. He was deliberately anti-conventional and completely 'un-PC', and the crowds loved it. 'Well, f*** you!', they all cried, in unison. Like they were being clever.

But I think the attitude that he therefore 'tapped into righteous grievances' is going to prove completely hollow. He outlined hardly any actual policies, except for 'tax cuts for everyone' and 'we'll build a lot of infrastructure'. But aside from the 5% of his output that was about policy, the rest was rants, insults, twitter flame wars, and stream-of-consciousness remarks about whatever came to mind.

Remember the optimism when Obama got in? 'We can change things'. Democrat or not, Obama rescued the US car industry from certain death, and did a lot else besides to stablise a dreadfully dangerous economic situation. Nobody's really interested in that, though - too busy yelling 'lock her up' from the bleachers. Meanwhile Trump's documented lies and insults amount to hundreds of pages.

So what? We say. 'The people have spoken'. Fallen for it, I think would be more accurate. Which is why 'post-fact' has become 'word of the year'. When all the euphoria wears off and the real work has to be done, then we'll see what it really means.

Yes that was a good video, but I doubt Sanders would have beaten Trump. Trump is a very good competitor, and he has been through his life. If you look at his life, he's quite frequently been the underdog and won - he would have beaten Sanders. What I find amazing is the amount of people who think Trump is an idiot. Trump is very far from being an idiot, he's in fact very calculated and very well planned. He makes it seem like he's throwing a tantrum, but watch him closely - he's only doing that when it would be to his advantage to do so. He has moments when he is surprisingly quiet, despite attempts to elicit his anger. Even when he appears angry, he is in fact very controlled, he could stop any moment. He's not a hysteric who can't control his reactions.

When all the euphoria wears off and the real work has to be done, then we'll see what it really means. — Wayfarer

Trump is far far more capable than Clinton will ever be to do ANYTHING AT ALL. Listen for once - Crooked has never done a single thing in her entire life. It's always been the folks around her - an entire system which was getting things done, she was only a tool for that system, a piece in the mechanism. She never did a single thing she wanted to do by herself. She always had a bunch of people around her telling her "do this, do that" etc. It's simple really. She has a good record only because she's been around the right people her whole life! But she has no capacity! Wake up! Look at it, she had everything put on the table. You, me, any of us can be Secretary of State or whatever if our best friends are Presidents and all around the governmental administration. It takes absolutely 0 skill. Going to sign international treaties - no skill. You go with a million pundits around you, telling you do this, do that, now we have to do X, now we have to do Y - it's so fucking simple. An idiot can do it. That's why most politicians are exactly that.

Look at it. Wake up! Trump did everything he has done and wanted to do by himself. He opposed many people and won, not once, but multiple times. He went out there, and got it. That's a big difference - it actually takes brain to do that. Friends can't do that for you. Connections can't do that for you. That takes real intelligence. It takes courage to stand up and go your own way. You try building the equivalent of Trump tower - see how difficult it is. In fact forget that - try building just an apartment building, you'll see how difficult it is, everything from getting the finance, to finding the right location, to getting permits, to negotiating every single deal regarding the contractor, architect, engineer, budgeting the project and so forth. You try running such a project. Then you'll realise that Trump is extremely intelligent, despite the appearances to the contrary. That's why he's been beating all the fools - he's made them think "oh Trump is just a fucking idiot, he's got no chance".

I don't agree with Trump on many points. But I respect Trump - Trump is a man of high abilities and high capacity. He's proven it over and over again, despite all the opposition he has faced. You should respect your opponent if you are to ever hope to beat them. If you don't take your opponents seriously you're going to lose - that's rule number 1 in any competition.

I'm hoping for the best, I hope he can rise above himself, but so far, as far as I am concerned, it is the victory of mendacity and mediocrity, and the best we can hope for is something short of economic collapse.

Oh, and Trump did everything, because he inherited a few hundred million dollars, and a lot of influence, from his father. He almost lost the lot more than once, and there are many 'self-made billionaires' in the USA right now, against whom Trump is but one.

For the Left, there is nothing to give. It’s description of society identifies values and identities which are defined by oppression of other groups. There’s no compromise to make on how racist it is to systematically detaining and deporting millions Latinos from the US. It’s a descriptive fact that amounts to denying civil rights to particular ethic groups and uprooting millions of their people. If someone voted for Trump, they’re racist because they’ve approved this approach. Rather than mere moralising or insult, it’s description of how their values, identity and action relate to groups of people in the US.

Our identity is what is at stake. Do we envision ourselves belonging to a community where people of any race belong? Or do we think that our society is really for “white” people, whether it be an active position or a subconscious assumption? It’s the later the Left is coming up against. People aren’t upset at the Left for making moralistic arguments (everyone does that), they are angry because the Left is attacking their values and identity. Whether it is the white nationalist or the mainstream liberal who subconsciously engages in racism, the Left is pointing out their oppression and saying their present image of themselves in society is a problem. Anything less, we aren’t being honest.

It’s never been about transcending racial categories. That’s just “colour blindness.” The point is to form a new identity which holds society belongs to a person of any race, rather than treating it as if it were merely white. Part of this means recognising people have their own place, a space where someone else doesn’t automatically have an interest or wisdom to speak. When the minority ethnicity can participate in culture without having white people make it about white people, there will be something approaching an identity that envision America belonging to more than white people.

Again, I can't emphasize enough how pointing this out doesn't necessarily mean one is a Republican partisan or an enthusiastic Trump supporter. An unintended consequence of their crusade against the perceived injustices of white males is that it has turned some of us (or more than some) who would otherwise be inclined to sympathize with quite a few of their positions (on economics, the environment, social programs and the like) against them - and many people who didn't previously give a shit about their 'race' - and who have never picked their friends, their spouse, their employees etc. based upon such narrow-minded tribal loyalties - have come to see that they are hated precisely because of it.

And no, I don't think pointing this out makes one a racist; I will acknowledge the many injustices non-whites and all 'others' (non-white male heterosexuals) have been the victims of in the US and abroad, and the genuine need to rectify these legitimate grievances to the best of our abilities, but I will also disagree with them on how best to transcend racial categories in favor of a more inclusive identity-- assuming of course that that's their goal, which I'm beginning to think isn't the case. Seems many would like to invert the old racial hierarchy instead of superseding it altogether. — “Erik”

This is exactly the sort “making it about white people” I’m talking about in the last paragraph. When someone points out instances of white people being favoured, it’s treated like a destruction of American identity. Point out that Trump supporters have voted for a racist platform and policy, someone is (supposedly), to take the line of thought to its conclusions (“reversing the racial hierarchy”), turning white people into slaves. All because in this instance, on this issue, it’s been denied that a white person (e.g. a Trump supporter) has an opinion of relevance.

No doubt people are reacting against the Left’s criticism, but it is not a new tribalism. The Left is going after the unstated tribalism no-one thought about or even recognised, the subconscious assumption of the US as belonging to white people (in terms of race).

I'm hoping for the best, I hope he can rise above himself, but so far, as far as I am concerned, it is the victory of mendacity and mediocrity, and the best we can hope for is something short of economic collapse. — Wayfarer

Trump could be dangerous that's true. But it's not because he's stupid. It's because he's fucking smart and ruthless and will go to great lengths to do what he wants to do. He's not mediocrity - mediocrity doesn't build towers, mediocrity is smoking weed, drinking with your buddies, going to hookers, etc. Trump is very very far from mediocrity. He plays a role - that of the buffoon - because it gives him a massive advantage. People laugh at him instead of get ready to fight back. Crooked laughs at him and thinks she has the election in her hand - but Trump is out there working till 3 AM in the morning, rally after rally. He's working his butt off getting what he wants. You don't become President sitting in bed, you don't get that being mediocre - unless you have a powerful husband or well-connected friends who want to put you there because you're good and docile and will do as they require you to do.

The thing is like this. Trump is not a good man. But he is a strong man. There's a huge difference between him and other politicians. He's strong - powerful. The others aren't. The very big problem of this world is that we don't have strong men in politics anymore. Trump is the exception - but he's not good, he doesn't have the moral character that a leader ought to have. But he's nevertheless better than those who lack even the strength needed for leadership. People would rather have a strong evil leader, than a weak leader.

The left has deliberately conflated border security with xenophobia and rule of law with racism. "Illegal immigrants" and "radical Islamic terrorists" are not races, they are classes of criminals. The left lost because they didn't realize this obvious difference.

I don't think Trump is smart, and I think his election is a disaster. That's all I have to say on it.

I've noticed something similar happen in myself. I've always been fairly apolitical, in that I honestly don't care to think much about politics or current affairs, despite still attempting to be reasonably well informed about them. I prefer to mind not the times but the eternities, as the phrase goes and regard this simply as an aspect of my character. However, when the Great Recession occurred, my concerns began to change. I was greatly irritated that forces outside of my control were likely going to affect my livelihood. So I began to look into the causes of the economic collapse with great interest and found myself in agreement with various critics on the left. I read and watched lectures from people like Richard Wolff and David Harvey, for example, both influential Marxist thinkers, and for a time, identified as a democratic socialist. I also voted for Obama and drifted more to the left on certain social issues like abortion, although I never really had any firm convictions regarding such issues until now.

In the last year and a half or so, I have begun to shed the aforementioned irritation and, along with it, the vague leftism I had adopted. To be annoyed at what one has no control over is foolish and a waste of time and energy. My move to the right has been facilitated by increasing exposure to and disagreement with the left, particularly in academia, increasing exposure to and agreement with the other side, and a reconsideration of how the metaphysical and ethical principles I hold to apply to various political issues. Speaking of abortion, I'm now firmly opposed to it, and am also much less angry with capitalism, which I realize I misunderstood and straw-manned. The simple reason I gravitated to the left, looking back, is as Dr. Johnson says, because of ignorance, pure ignorance.

Ha ha ha! Goodluck with that my friend. Let's all listen to TheWillow - oh you're a white heterosexual male? You fucking abuser, how dare you? How dare you apply to the same position as a black female lesbian? Listen to me - the left is going to hell with its identity politics. Look - what's so hard to get it? You think these white folk that you hate will accept to become the abused class so that other people supposedly will feel better? Did the blacks accept being the abused class? No!! That's why they went out into the streets and rebelled. The whites will do the same. It's very simple. You wanna keep driving your oppressive identity politics, it will only lead to more conflict.

Take another issue. The relationship between men and women. Do you think I, as a man, will ever accept my wife to go out naked protesting, or to pose naked because she wants to vote for Crooked, or any such shit? Of course not. Now you're going to start with "oh so you want to control what she does with her body" yadda yadda yadda. Just watch. You're going to start explaining it >:O

Do you think my wife will ever accept me having extra-martial affairs because "I believe in an open-relationship" or any other such shit? Really give me a break - your unrealistic views are laughable. And the same goes for all leftists.

I can only counter the academic and intellectual approach to racial matters with my own experience. My experience isn't the whole story, obviously, but I feel fortunate to have been raised in an extremely diverse area where I was exposed to many different races and cultures. I have way more Latino friends than white, and many of these friends (about 50% I'd say) voted for Trump. I also married a Mexican woman and have two boys who are mixed race. So yeah, I personally don't give a rat's ass about what color or race a person is and tend to look more at commonalities beyond superficial distinctions (no matter how important these have been historically). If my son brought home a black girl who treated him well and made him happy, I would be overjoyed.

Now there are obviously other white people who do feel some special attachment to their racial identity, but I think the percentage of those who do who may have been greatly exaggerated. I've met too many awesome black and Latino and Jewish and Asian people, and also way too many white people who were total assholes to put much stock in tribal divisions and insidious generalizations. That's the beauty of America, at least as a possibility despite a dark past of racial antagonisms. I'm not suggesting people of color or other marginalized people just 'get over it' but, as a pragmatist of sorts, am wondering how best to move forward on the issue without the constant rehashing of resentments. The constant vilification of white men is not helping.

A naïve and unsophisticated position indeed, but in many ways more true than the views peddled out of academia that seem to perpetuate divisiveness and racial hatred. The people I hang out with and work with are more important to me - and more influential on my thoughts - than getting caught up in abstractions. I'm more interested in issues of class than race. American identity IS NOT synonymous with being white to anyone other than fringe groups that probably represent about 1% of the population.

Again, these are just my views and I'll leave it to others to form their own opinions.

The issue is, in a sense, about the abstractions.

Conflict isn't playing out in terms of policy. What's at stake isn't, for example, the enacting of one particular racist policy or not. The Left isn't just saying: "We ought not lock-up and deport illegal immigrants because it's racist." They are concerned about an underlying identity that sees us even pose such racist policies in the first place.

In their everyday lives, a lot of the people the Left is criticising get along fine with people of many different ethnicities. For many, it's only when the abstraction of American identity becomes involved that the issues come out. When discussion of our identity that impacts our reaction to people we don't know occurs, it becomes all about the importance and superiority of white people.

People who point out an advantage white men have are suddenly "vilifying white men" for pointing out out a state of society and/or claiming it is unjust. The moment the abstraction "white man" comes-up, the importance and superiority of the white man casts aside any other consideration.

If I point out that a Trump voter has supported a racist party and platform, and so has an identity bound-up with that racism, I'm supposing lying. Supposedly, I'm unfairly stereotyping white working class Trump supporter, as if I failed to understand they are not racists but rather concerned with something else (the economic degradation of their communities under the modern neo-liberal economy). In this situation, my truthful statement about Trump supporters is misunderstood as a self-serving lie based on my irrational prejudice.

Another example is the reaction to some Leftist's protests against the election of Trump. The white working class are given a free pass to approve a racist, sexist and heterosexist values and platform as a protest against economic degradation, yet the moment minority groups and their allies put in a protests about the values and platform of who's been elected, they are just sore losers without who have no reason to be concerned. In the abstraction of identity, white people view themselves as the only ones who matter, who are the ones to whom America belongs. It's this the Left is targeting, not just people who'd like to lynch anyone in their town who's not white.

One does not simply "argue" with Willow.

One instead smashes one's head against the wall repeatedly.

Trump is far far more capable than Clinton — Agustino

Well, what exactly has Trump done that proves him to be a really swell guy to be President?

He's succeeded in show business. No small deal, most people who try to succeed in show business fail. He's succeeded in business, apparently. Maybe some of his dealings were shady, but shady kind of comes with the territory of real estate; everybody wants to live on a shady street. As a "university" founder, he evidently left a great deal to be desired. I can't think of anything else he's done that was particularly distinguished.

As far as I know, Hillary has not tried show business or real estate. Being First Lady isn't something that Trump was ever eligible to be, and it's pretty clear that he doesn't have much of her policy wonkiness.

Ditto.

When're you going to move more toward rightly responding to my qualms with you in the Shoutbox, ay?

It's also utterly pointless arguing about this particular topic with Agostino, from my experience. He's definitely imbibed whatever kool-aid it is that Trump is handing out.

And who was Prez during most of the sexual revolution? Oh, yeah - Nixon. The country was SO far to the left.

Given the continued wage disparity and results of the recent election, we see how enlightened the US is regarding its attitude towards women. Look at your own post. You are so anti-woman that you can't stop yourself from writing "Crooked Hillary".

When abortion rights are repealed (I give it two years, tops) please come back and tell us all about the wonderful sexual revolution. (And if you think giving a woman the right to choose is wrong and should be repealed, then you know nothing about the sexual revolution.)

She should really be ashamed of herself - the person who wants to be President goes licking bankers, and hedge fund managers, and other rich folks — Agustino

Not like failing to pay - or file - taxes for at least 10 years. Or failing to pay your employees on a timely basis. Or going bankrupt numerous times (and using the US taxpayer to bail you out).

Any bets on how long it takes Trump to significantly reduce taxes on the rich? Six months?

Clinton-Soros sex scandal? You are drinking from the troth of Limbaugh/Hannity/Breitbart. (And I know what channel your TV is set to.) Is that baseless slander an attempt to deflect attention from the very real fact that Trump has admitted being attracted to his own daughter? Or that he is married to a soft-porn actress?

And due to the endless name-calling, people stop caring what you say. — tom

If endless name-calling were a fault, no one would have voted for your boy. Do you deny that Trump has ridiculed and slandered countless political opponents during his campaign? I can provide a list.

sick >10 yr old meme


if you liked that, you'll love these.










just messing thorongil, ur my boy.

Well written post and I think you hit on a large part of what has been bothering me about the left.

Well, of course you're drifting right. You're growing old. Change is painful (the music these kids listen to these days, jeez), and to stave off your impending mortality, you try to grab and hang onto as much stuff as you can. — Real Gone Cat

Haha, I'm still in my 20s.

(There was some salon or slate article about how it's insensitive to discuss the reasons for Hillary's loss beyond sexism at least until female hillary supporters have time to grieve...that's insane but I've seen people in my fb circle say similar things) — csalisbury

I also think this is a large part of my thinking 'what the hell is going on?'. I had a female friend post a comment saying the election was entirely about gender. A male replied listing some other factors - her response was something about how it was so enlightening to here from men that male privileged doesn't exist.

When did this become a completely normal way to argue in a political discussion?

I can't stand that kind of thing - and it makes me sympathetic to many anti-pc, anti-left voices. But I think you could reasonably compare it to similar meme/rhetoric-cultures on the right (i.e. the fact that a lot of right-leaning people listen to Rush Limbaugh and post dumb fb memes about Obama trying to end democracy doesn't mean that conservative intellectuals don't have fascinating, compelling arguments. I have a lot of respect for intelligent conservatives. )

All that being said, I think the US left does have a serious PR problem on all levels.

Patience is one of the virtues :P

And who was Prez during most of the sexual revolution? Oh, yeah - Nixon. The country was SO far to the left. — Real Gone Cat

Maybe the country wasn't so far left politically, but culturally it certainly was.

Given the continued wage disparity and results of the recent election, we see how enlightened the US is regarding its attitude towards women. Look at your own post. You are so anti-woman that you can't stop yourself from writing "Crooked Hillary". — Real Gone Cat

Oh yeah, let's not be anti-woman, let's allow Amy Schumer to fuck around and do whatever she likes. Let's let her be a spoiled brat, that certainly is being "pro-woman". I don't call that a woman - that's a beast of the fields as far as I'm concerned, and the faster we get rid of folks like her (from the TV screen and the Media), the better the whole world will be. Give me a break - you say the country has never been on the left, and lo and behold you're peddling the same mantras "women are abused", etc. that the left peddles. Where are these places where women are taken and whipped or raped? Show them to me! In the past I could have taken you to a place where the slaves are abused and showed you - here are the slaves, they have no freedom and they're at the mercy of their masters. Take me to where these women are abused. Where is that? Nowhere. So give me a break with this feminazism. This is nothing short of a war on men. Some whores - like Amy Schumer - would like men to prostate before their vaginas, and be some disposable scum that they can throw away whenever they need to. I'm not going to bow to that - you can keep your head down and bow - you may do anything for pussy, but not me.

When abortion rights are repealed (I give it two years, tops) please come back and tell us all about the wonderful sexual revolution. (And if you think giving a woman the right to choose is wrong and should be repealed, then you know nothing about the sexual revolution.) — Real Gone Cat

Well I'm very glad those "murder" rights are repealed. As far as I'm aware it's not a good thing that we have women who use their bodies in irresponsible ways, and then resort to murdering the child in order to avoid the consequences of their actions. That's shameful - they should be ashamed of themselves, as should the men who had sex with them knowing that this would be the consequence.

Not like failing to pay - or file - taxes for at least 10 years. Or failing to pay your employees on a timely basis. Or going bankrupt numerous times (and using the US taxpayer to bail you out). — Real Gone Cat

Yes, as far as I'm aware, it's the government's job to make people pay taxes, and it's the businessman's job to avoid paying them if he can. He's a businessman because he can manage capital better than the government - or at least thinks he can. The problem is that the government is stupid - that's why men like Trump can get away with paying less in taxes. If the government was formed of able men, then no one could get away with not paying taxes.

Any bets on how long it takes Trump to significantly reduce taxes on the rich? Six months? — Real Gone Cat

You mean to reduce taxes on everyone? :P

I did already.

Anyway - thoughts? — shmik

For some reason I seem to think you're Australian - perhaps something you wrote once at the old place.

If you are, then what do you think of Philip Adams as an example of someone of the Left that is very friendly, open-minded and non-abusive to those with whom he disagrees, often having them as guests on his late night talk show on Radio National. He seeks to engage with and understand them rather than shouting at or accusing them.

Is he a model of what we need more of on the Left? Or do you think that he also suffers from too many of the flaws that concern you?

I'm trying to think of an American equivalent but my knowledge of US public intellectuals is too thin. Adams is a gentle, cuddly, bearded, grandfatherly, rumbly-voiced old Leftie who, many decades ago may even have been a Commie (gasp!). He made plenty of money working in advertising and film-making, so he is completely immune to accusations of 'envy politics'.

Calling Dems "lefties" is a Fox News meme. — Real Gone Cat

That sounds about right to me. Neither of the US parties would qualify as Left in most other countries. While I agree that the raging, holier-than-though, politically correct left-wing preacher is an unfortunately too common member of what is thought of as the Left, I don't believe that is what gave the election to Trump, because the Dems, including Ms Clinton, are much too right-wing to appeal to such types.

Another example is the reaction to some Leftist's protests against the election of Trump. The white working class are given a free pass to approve a racist, sexist and heterosexist values and platform as a protest against economic degradation, yet the moment minority groups and their allies put in a protests about the values and platform of who's been elected, they are just sore losers without who have no reason to be concerned. — TheWillowOfDarkness

In other words, in TheWillow's world, if you disagree with feminazism, if you're against globalisation, if you're in any way friendly to whites - that's it, you shouldn't be allowed to live, you shouldn't be allowed to have an identity - because you're racist, sexist, misogynist, etc. . He wants to bulldozer the strength of peer pressure and social conformity in order to enforce his disgusting world view on the rest of us. He too has the phantasy of making an eternity - an end of history - out of his ideal.

The problem with the anti-Trump protests is that they're (1) disgusting and rude, (2) they create chaos, and they are not civil. They block roads, they fight, they insult, they go naked - that's fucking disgusting, they should all be arrested as far as I'm concerned. They should learn to protest in a civilised manner, not like beasts of the field. The Bernie Sanders "me me me" generation.

He's succeeded in show business. No small deal, most people who try to succeed in show business fail. He's succeeded in business, apparently. Maybe some of his dealings were shady, but shady kind of comes with the territory of real estate; everybody wants to live on a shady street. As a "university" founder, he evidently left a great deal to be desired. I can't think of anything else he's done that was particularly distinguished.

As far as I know, Hillary has not tried show business or real estate. Being First Lady isn't something that Trump was ever eligible to be, and it's pretty clear that he doesn't have much of her policy wonkiness. — Bitter Crank

He's succeeded in construction business - which is probably the most complicated business you can get into simply because the number of factors (and diversity of the people) that has to be managed is much greater than in most other businesses. He's built some amazing structures/places.

Yes it's true that he has also failed many times, but so what? He has tried to do Universities, airlines, etc. it would be utterly unbelievable if anyone could have managed. The important point is that his failures were never so great as to get him out of business. He's never truly failed. True failure is to have lost everything he had. And he wasn't the type of person to sit on his money - he was actively engaged in investing it. If most other people do that, they'd lose most of it. Most of the rich families - take Rockefellers - aren't actively engaged in manipulating their wealth. They give it to professionals, who administrate it for them such that it doesn't dwindle. They're not really taking "risks" the way Trump has been.

So in a single comment, you take the left to task for accusing the right of anti-intellectualism, then point out the right's "blatant" anti-intellectualism! Hilarious. — Real Gone Cat

That's not my comment. Why don't you reply to what is written instead of your own rephrased misinterpretations?

So your claim is that the right exhibits "blatant" anti-intellectualism. Are you a leftie? — Real Gone Cat

My claim is directed at the anti-intellectualism of ideologues on the left and the right. Since you can read it should not have passed you by. So, are you an ideologue?