New Forbes post – our last Jim Crow generation

It can be tough to make sense of calls to “Make America Great Again” unless you remember a time when all of the best that America had to offer was set aside just for you. For a new Forbes post I looked at some of Trump’s most committed supporters by age range, voters at age 70, and examined the world in which they were raised.

White voters born in the same year as Donald Trump would spend much of their lives in a world crafted to reinforce their sense of racial superiority. They came of age protected like a Soviet state-owned factory. Exposed suddenly to competition, some are not thriving. They are experiencing very real trauma as the world they once knew, a world dedicated to their protection, erodes away.

Explanations are not excuses, but history can at least shed light on their otherwise baffling behavior. For the last Jim Crow generation, making America great again has a special meaning. What was great for them was not quite so great for everyone else.

No offense to the many septuagenarians who light up our comments feed. Interested in your thoughts on it.

In other news, we are about two weeks from having a new blog/forum site ready. The GOPLifer is closing in on parole. Let’s hope I don’t get shivved before the release date rolls around. Almost there.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Posted in Uncategorized
460 comments on “New Forbes post – our last Jim Crow generation
  1. worth reading. Makes sense. Quality stuff

  2. 1mime says:

    WaPo is running a series of editorials on why they believe DJ Trump is unfit for POTUS. Here is a link to the first of the series. The opening paragraph speaks to Trump supporters, who as EJ noted, have opinions with which we disagree and for which we have no respect. WaPo endeavors to explain exactly why their support is so dangerous and wrong-headed.

    “IF YOU know that Donald Trump is ignorant, unprepared and bigoted, but are thinking of voting for him anyway because you doubt he could do much harm — this editorial is for you.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-wrecking-ball-in-the-white-house-the-damage-trump-could-do-from-day-one/2016/09/30/1c69e9cc-85b5-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html?utm_term=.7fb727adb887&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

  3. Griffin says:

    Older news but gotta say Stephen Carter has a really strong point here that I hadn’t considered before when it comes to corporations and free speech (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-15/yes-corporations-do-have-free-speech-rights).

    • duncancairncross says:

      Hi Griffin
      I see this differently – as a citizen you have rights and also obligations

      Corporations have different rights and also different obligations –

      The first amendment rights go along with limitations and obligations of actual physical citizens

      When corporations can be sent to jail, die, and have unlimited liability like flesh and blood citizens then you can argue about the “right to free speech”

      • Griffin says:

        I’m not sure Carter is going so far as to say Corporations should necessarily get free speech rights that are equal to or exactly the same of that of a citizen, just that they do have some sort of free speech rights.

      • 1mime says:

        I noted that Carter said the original C.U. suit dealt with “non-profits” right to electioneering before voting day….It morphed to “all” businesses. I see a distinct difference between a business exercising its right to where it does business from actively funding specific candidates – with anonymity, in many cases. There is the whole other question of whether it is “right” for a CEO and/or Board of Directors to make contributions to espouse political views that do not reflect stockholder approval.

        In all, C.U. has changed the nature of political contributions and voice in the election process in a way that has far more negatives than positives, IMO. I think time has proven this point to be true in practice. The lines have become so blurred over what constitutes “free speech” vs “special interest outright political speech” that it has corrupted the intent of the law, if there was ever an intent that was honorable.

      • Creigh says:

        “Corporations have different rights and different obligations” Corporations also have a massive power disparity over individuals. Ths makes them useful but also dangerous.

        I argued below that corporations should be regarded by courts as property rather than as persons, and could therefore be regulated in ways that would be inappropriate – as well as unconstitutional – if applied to real people. Contra the Supreme Court in cases like Citizens United, I can’t think of any valid reason that a corporation’s power to amplify certain voices shouldn’t be subject to regulation under the law.

    • I think Carter’s stretching. His suggestion that corporate threats to move out of homophobic states are a free speech issue is something of a conflation. I appreciate that he’s someone who lives and breathes free speech issues the same way the Pope lives and breathes Christianity, and therefore he will see everything through that lens, but it’s not persuasive.

      There is a big difference between corporations choosing the place in which they wish to do business, and corporations making non-business-related public statements to support the political views of their management or shareholders. Even someone fanatically opposed to free speech would not object to the first, but many reasonable people may object to the second.

      • Griffin says:

        “…corporations making non-business-related public statements to support the political views of their management or shareholders”

        Why not? At that point would it make much of a difference if the corporation openly took a political position or all the managers and shareholders individually took a position on their own? If they own a majority of the company I think they’re allowed to say where their company stands on issues.

      • 1mime says:

        Majority stockholders should be able to state their positions – yes, individually, they always have that right. But when they seek preferential tax status and/or anonymity of donation, given the extremely generous cap on said donations, that is quite another thing.

      • It is reasonable to believe that a company should be allowed to be a mouthpiece for its owners’ or managers’ views which are unrelated to the company. Personally, I do not believe this, but it’s a reasonable belief and I’m not going to mock you for it.

        However, I hope you agree with me that the conflation Carter makes – of saying that there is no difference between that and physically moving a company’s offices to a different place – is nonsensical, and is something that should be mocked.

        (In maths there’s a saying that if a person gets the right answer by the wrong method, they’re still wrong. I think this is probably how this essay of Carter’s should be approached.)

      • duncancairncross says:

        Why is it “reasonable to believe that a company should be allowed to be a mouthpiece for its owners’ or managers’ views”
        If they want those views to be aired they they should do so
        Going through “their” company smacks of double dipping
        We don’t let people vote several times so why should we let people use a organ (a limited company) to do the equivalent

      • 1mime says:

        O.T. EJ, but I am intrigued by your statement, “In maths, there is a saying, that if a person gets the right answer by the wrong method, they’re still wrong.”

        You are a scientist, this statement seems to directly confront the open process by which science advances. Why should there be only one method acceptable to solve a problem?

      • I agree with you, duncan: I think companies should not be mouthpieces for their owners or managers on unrelated topics. I also believe that Marco Rubio should not be President and that there is no God. Many people disagree with me on these points, and I respect this disagreement. Their views are valid even if I don’t share them.

        On the other hand, I believe that the Earth is round, chocolate should not go on French Fries, and Donald Trump should not be President. If anyone disagrees with me then they’re wrong in a way that deserves no respect. They probably have poor personal hygiene and enjoyed the Twilight novels.

        I think every reasonable person has a similar internal categorisation between views they disagree with but respect, and views they disagree with but do not respect. Even if the latter group happen to agree with me once in a while, they are still absurd. As Carter is.

      • flypusher says:

        “There is a big difference between corporations choosing the place in which they wish to do business, ”

        Certainly there are political components in choosing to leave/ not go to/ not expand operations in a state like NC because they have passed laws you feel are discriminatory. But it’s also a business decision if your customer base includes the people discriminated against and/or people who have objections to the discrimination. It gets tangled. Sure would be nice if we would stop passing these sorts of laws.

      • 1mime:
        There are many methods to achieve a correct answer. You’re entirely right about that. However, there are also methods which cannot be trusted, and therefore even if they once gave the right answer they’re suspect.

        Consider the following method of multiplying two by two to get four:

        “I burn incense and invoke the favour of Wotan and Freja whilst tolling a bell twice, then twice again. Four birds fly out of the nearby trees, this means the answer is four.”

        Would you trust this method to also give you the right answer next time?

        (I’m being funny, but the point you raise is a serious one. It’s vitally important in science to know the difference between a reliable method, and a method which just happened to give the right answer when you checked it. We spend a lot of time double-checking one another’s work for this very reason.)

      • 1mime says:

        Happens-chance is not reliable, hence unacceptable as a proven method. Totally agree; however, if alternative methods can be applied that achieve the same outcome with repetition, why wouldn’t they be acceptable? I suspect that you would not disagree with that. I also respect the fact that for complex problems, there may be more than one answer, but one that is “best”.

        I embrace the creative process which by its nature encourages varied approaches. This has served me well as an intellectual curiosity that can be applied to almost all decisions and choices in life. (excepting ones of the heart, which seemingly are the most difficult, yet still they offer choice).

        With math, a subject in which my knowledge is more elementary (loved geometry/algebra/trig, but that’s as far as I got up the math tree in college), there are probably problems which have only one solution, but I would wager experts take great pleasure (as they should) in challenging this limitation.

        Years ago, when we were subscribers to the WSJ (a much different tome than it is now under Murdoch), a Fortune 500 company had a one page ad that simply said this: “If it’s not broke, break it!” That challenge has stayed with me – causing me some grief as well as profound pleasure over the years. It’s generally how I look at life – as a challenge with infinite possibilities. (How else would one explain the ascent of DJT (-;)

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Mime, as a trained engineer, we have to prove our calculations to ensure we arrive at the correct solution in the proper manner. We get no credit for arriving at a lucky correct answer by 2 or more errors that may have happened to cancel each other out or arrive at the correct solution in the “wrong method”. That’s why engineering exams are generally not in a multiple choice format. You don’t get to have a lucky guess. You have to know what you are doing.

        In the real world, if only one building or bridge collapse but the other doesn’t because you used the wrong calculations, but had the “right answer”, those people are just as dead and you get no credit for the other deaths “avoided” by a lucky math error.

      • 1mime says:

        I certainly understand that in the hard sciences this is true. One of the toughest final exams I ever took was in accounting where the teacher used multiple choice. Essentially, you had to work out every option to be confident you made the correct choice in your answer. I surprised myself on that test – actually did very well – but it was a good thing I was prepared…

        My dad was an engineer, my brother and son are engineers, so I know about “bridges”…As an aside, you think maybe we could use a few more engineers in Congress than lawyers?

      • 1mime:
        I totally agree that most problems have many solutions, and that there is tremendous creativity in finding a new one. That’s one of the things that I love the most.

        One of the strangest things in maths is that if you have multiple different solutions, then sometimes they will turn out to be just different ways of seeing the same solution. It’s something that I always find very beautiful, and I know some people who feel religious about it.

      • 1mime says:

        EJ, you and I see this exactly alike. There is a powerful lesson for life and living in that joy of “differences”. You must be a fantastic scientist.

      • flypusher says:

        “My dad was an engineer, my brother and son are engineers, so I know about “bridges”…As an aside, you think maybe we could use a few more engineers in Congress than lawyers.”

        It would be wonderful to have more scientists and engineers in elected office. There are a few, but they’re a tiny minority. But there are some roadblocks. First, there are a lot of introverts in the sciences. We would have a much harder time with the requirements of campaigning. All that required small talk with strangers burns through our stores of social energy very quickly. Extroverts eat that stuff up. But even more important, BSing is a major no-no. That was one of the big tests in my PhD candidacy exam- when you don’t know the answer to a question, do you try to fake one, or say “I don’t know”? I passed. But even before this current wave of anti-intellectualism in our politics, telling people unpleasant truths that they didn’t want to hear tended to select you out of the race. It’s a very hard needle to thread.

      • 1mime says:

        Somehow, I think you and I don’t really give a flying &*%% for lazy and irresponsible decision makers – except – when their vote impacts our lives.

      • Back before the wall came down, East Germany had a lot of engineers in government in the same way that America nowadays has a lot of lawyers in government.

        It was less of a paradise than you’d expect.

      • 1mime says:

        Maybe the best solution is to have a mix of professionals in Congress, including more women, who typically are hard workers and more likely to reach consensus.

    • 1mime says:

      Link wouldn’t open, Griffin.

    • Creigh says:

      I’d completely reject the proposition that corporations have any rights under the First Amendment. Corporations are not persons, they are property owned by persons. The Constitution addresses the rights of property in the Fifth Amendment; “no person shall be deprived of…property without due process of law,” the only place property is mentioned.

      In order to function effectively, corporations need to have some of the powers that people have, such as the right to own property, the right to enter into contracts, and access to courts to enforce those powers. Those powers are granted by statute, they are not in the Constitution. Real people certainly have the right to speak on behalf of corporations, and to employ the press on behalf of corporations, and to petition the government on behalf of corporations, but the idea of corporations having the ability to speak, or a religion or any beliefs at all, not being sentient beings, is ridiculous.

      • 1mime says:

        Excellent rebuttal and explanation, Creigh! Best, most succinct and understandable I’ve ever seen of refutation of C.U.

      • Creigh says:

        On a related topic, spending of money should also not be considered to be protected as speech under the First Amendment. Like corporations, money is property owned by people.

      • 1mime says:

        Exactly. And in the case of corporations? Money is a “loan” from the shareholders…..as Mr. Stumpf is finding out.

  4. 1mime says:

    Another judicial setback for Texas….This one on internet rights….I don’t pretend to be familiar with the merits of the case, but knowing Ted Cruz pushed it in the Senate and Ken Paxton (TX AG) pushed it in TX, predisposes me to bet on the “other guys” (federal government position) – sight unseen.

    The most striking point made by Cruz and Paxton about this matter was this: “Cruz and Paxton had argued that removing federal oversight of ICANN would give authoritarian regimes like Russia, China, and Iran the ability to interfere with “what should be a free and open internet.”

    Hmm, amazing that Republicans appear to only “care” when their internet rights are being threatened? I didn’t hear any concern the DNC and Clinton emails were being hacked….or the wikileaked emails…..Guess it just depends upon whose ox is being gored…….

    Ain’t Karma sweet!

    http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Judge-to-rule-on-internet-freedom-fight-9517421.php

  5. flypusher says:

    Objv says she thinks Trump would be better for minorities. Also the ONLY argument she has made in favor of Trump that holds even a drop of water is that she wouldn’t like HRC’s SCOTUS picks (something that is entirely subjective, BTW). She wants another Scalia. What’s his record? Oh lookie here, he voted to gut the Voting Rights Act. And I’m sure it’s just coincidence that all these bad laws restricting voting rights are embroiled in so many court fights right now. So objv’s “logic” is that minorities should vote for someone who would appoint people to SCOTUS who would strike down/weaken laws that protect their civil rights. What have they got to lose indeed?

    Pretty damn deplorable, if you ask me.

    • 1mime says:

      Don’t forget the case that gave second amendment rights for personal gun ownership or Citizens United….there are so many. Undoubtedly, Scalia had some solid rulings, but if he did, they were early in his tenure. I have zero respect for the man as a jurist.

    • objv says:

      fly, So, showing a photo ID means my civil rights are being violated? If so, my rights are being violated on a regular basis by financial institutions or when buying socks at the outlet mall. I do agree that both parties should make sure that every registered voter is able to get a free photo ID, but with so many elections (especially state and local elections) being a matter of a few votes, it’s crazy not to have a better method of identification in place.

      And, by the way, I’m an adorable deplorable (according to Tutt). Please, get that right. 🙂

      • flypusher says:

        If you do not have easy access to an ID, then YES. You show a very typical White person blind spot- you didn’t have any trouble, so how could anyone else? If you where honest and actually CARED about every citizen exercising their rights, your FIRST question would have been “why aren’t we also ensuring that EVERYBODY who needs an ID has an ID?’ Because FIRST you issue the IDs, and THEN you make the requirement for voting. Not the other way, which is how it was done. But you put it as an afterthought and that speaks volumes. These laws are part of a larger pattern. I’m sure you also see no sinister intent in things like closing DMV offices in minority neighborhoods or cutting weekend hours.

        One of my grad school friends specialized in researching elections and the tricks used to keep “those people” from voting. I had great instruction in seeing this bullshit for exactly what it is. Hell, some GOPers even openly admit they try to hinder minority voting because they vote Democrat. But Hillary is the true racist, and Trump is going to be good for minorities. At this point I’d actually have some respect for you if you were trolling, ’cause you’re getting bites, but I suspect you really are in a genuine state of denial about Trump, because this particular brain disease is an epidemic.

      • 1mime says:

        Fly, I do not know why you bother.

      • flypusher says:

        Also the deplorable NC law recently struck down had other hurdles to make it harder for Black people to vote. From NPR:

        “In the swing state of North Carolina, a fight for early voting rights that seemed to end with a strongly worded federal court ruling last month, may be just getting started.

        That fight began in 2013, when the state made cuts to early voting, created a photo ID requirement and eliminated same-day registration, out-of-precinct voting, and pre-registration of high school students.

        More than half of all voters there use early voting, and African-Americans do so at higher rates than whites. African-Americans also tend to overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

        In July of this year, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down major parts of the overhaul. The three-judge panel ruled those changes targeted African-Americans “with almost surgical precision.”

        Scalia would have voted in favor of that travesty. We do NOT need anyone like him on the bench. But Trump would be better for minorities. Just because.

      • duncancairncross says:

        Why do you need ID?
        When I go to vote I say who I am – the nice lady ticks my name off the list and gives me my ballot

        Simple and completely foolproof –
        if anybody else tries to vote in my name there will be two ticks giving a record that something wrong has happened – then the police will investigate

        I think that has happened twice in the last 30 years – each time a mistake

        So why do you need ID???

      • 1mime says:

        I can’t cite the exact source, but there have been approximately 35 cases of proven voter fraud out of over 600,000,000 cast votes in U.S. elections. In business, I’d take that percentage of success any day.

      • objv says:

        fly, calm down, it’s Friday night and time to unwind!

        I do agree that everyone that wants an ID should get one. We should not be making it harder – only easier for more reasons than just voting. Republicans should NOT try to hinder anyone from voting by making it hard to get an ID. Democrats need to face the reality that a voter ID is a necessity.

        I last showed my driver’s license at the California State Train Museum in Sacramento. Wow, the state of California must be terribly racist to insist on seeing my driver’s license before I get to see their trains. (Sarcasm alert.)

        A photo ID is a necessity of modern life. Both parties need to make that happen. If Republicans have tried to hinder people from voting, they’ve done a terrible thing. That is not to say that Democrats should stick obstinately to the silly notion that voter fraud is an impossibility.

        Heck, what’s to prevent me from taking my liberal leaning mom’s voter registration card and voting in her place? Absolutely nothing. It’s that easy.

      • duncancairncross says:

        Except that when your mum goes to vote two people will have voted in that name – and the police will become very interested

        No need for an ID at all

      • flypusher says:

        Sometimes I unwind with adult beverages, sometimes I unwind by calling out bullshit. You agree that everyone should have an ID. Fine. But the problem you keep evading is that these laws are being passed not only WITHOUT an effort to provide IDs for everyone, but often there are additional shenanigans like closing DMV offices, which make it HARDER to get IDs. The GOP are the ones pulling this crap, not the Dems. But the GOP is better for minorities. Better find a different sales pitch, because polls show they aren’t buying it.

      • @flypusher: Fly, with all respect, take a quick breath and take it easy. Don’t get sucked into objv’s photo ID distraction. Keep your eye on the bulls-eye in that her assertion that a President Trump would be better for minorities than a President Clinton is, without exception, complete and utter shit.

        Let’s be clear. objv knows this perfectly well, hence why her apparent argument for why minorities would be better off under Trump than Clinton amounts to nothing more or less than an anti-Hillary rant and some such nonsense about Trump reigning in corporate abuses. Also, not coincidentally, complete shit too.

        Every single commentator here knows this. They can’t defend Trump, so they inevitable have to go down one of two paths, either screaming “BUT HILLARY’S…!!!” or engaging in broad platitudes on Trump that are easily torn apart on the substance.

        There’s nothing to argue about here. As citizens of this country and more importantly, as human beings who want to be able to feel comfortable looking at themselves in the mirror each morning, we have a duty to beat Trump like a drum in November and we will. If that means tearing down his supporters’ delusions of grandeur and stomping their worldview under foot, then that’s what’s going to have to be done.

        And if that includes raising a hand to objv and her family and saying that those beliefs that lead you to invest in Trump will not be acknowledged, then that is something that will be done too. We’re here to tell you that your wish will not be realized. Period.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        objv says:
        September 30, 2016 at 10:29 pm

        “If Republicans have tried to hinder people from voting, they’ve done a terrible thing. That is not to say that Democrats should stick obstinately to the silly notion that voter fraud is an impossibility.”

        There is no “if” on Republicans suppressing votes and particularly minority votes. It is FACT based on all the court rulings.

        Also I see to OV facts are STILL a “silly notion”. Hence all her cognitive dissonance/willful ignorance regarding facts and reality to support her hateful views and hateful leaders/role models.

        “A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

        And OV will continue to insist she’s not a racist as she publicly expounds, cheers, and supports one racist idea/action after another.

        I see nothing has changed a bit.

    • 1mime says:

      Actually, that was a rather selfish, narrow comment on my part. I hope these new citizens will not be turned away from voting in their first major election. That is actually more important than how either candidate benefits.

  6. 1mime says:

    More from The Atlantic on the decision to rush the 9/11 bill through Congress.

    “McConnell could have waited until the lame-duck session in November, allowing more time for debate and the possibility of a compromise. Cardin said, however, that it is Senate custom to act on presidential vetoes as soon as they are received. A Senate Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, surmised that the timing had more to do with politics and a pent-up frustration with the outgoing Obama.”

    Is there any doubt there was a desire to hand Obama his first veto over ride? And, the lack of input from POTUS explaining what was wrong with this bill? It was merely a 3-page veto explanation…..Guess that just wasn’t “long enough”……

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/911-legislation-congress-obama-veto-override/502337/?utm_source=nl-politics-daily-093016

    • RobA says:

      The “Obama didn’t explain it well enough” excuse is pathetic and laughable.

      It’s THEIR job to know what’s in the bills they vote for, period.

      • Creigh says:

        That’s the majority leader of the world’s greatest deliberative body complaining about not being sufficiently informed about what they were voting on.

  7. 1mime says:

    Couldn’t happen to a more deserving person. Unanimous decision. More than just a suspension…Now, if only the voters of AL refuse to re-elect this suspended chief justice,

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/30/496089488/alabamas-chief-justice-roy-moore-loses-case-over-same-sex-marriage-stance?utm_source=nl-politics-daily-093016

    • >] “Now, if only the voters of AL refuse to re-elect this suspended chief justice

      That’s not a concern. Moore has been suspended for the rest of his term and because of his age, he won’t be allowed to run again. He’s finished.

      Evidently however, the thought of not being able to enforce his backwards-looking, asinine agenda on Alabama anymore hasn’t sat well with Moore. Here’s an accurate rendition of his immediate response:

      • RobA says:

        Emperor Palpatine, how fitting a comparison for Judge Moore.

        “Gooooood…..gooooooood…..let the hate flow through you……”

      • 1mime says:

        Justice Moore may be age-restricted from seeking his position on the bench, but he is reportedly considering running for a state-wide position….Can’t keep a “good” man down……..

    • Kenneth Devaney says:

      Sadly, its rumored he was hoping for this outcome so he could run for Governor or Attorney General…and win in a landslide…
      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/01/us/roy-moore-alabama-chief-justice.html

  8. Kenneth Devaney says:

    One of the characteristics of our countrymen/countrywomen is they are adept at adapting and turn any situation on its head sometimes for a better purpose other times for just a different way to view events. This falls into the first category…..

    A Houston PR firm has created a small cadre of Taco Trucks parked on street corners in Houston that register people to vote while waiting for their tacos….this is why America is and will continue to be great or as Stephen Colbert once said…”Re-becoming the Greatness we never weren’t”

    http://www.rigsbyhull.com/taco-trucks

    • 1mime says:

      I read about this venture in the Houston Chronicle. What’s so neat about this is that the vendors are not partisan as they register people. Their focus is simply to get people registered to vote. I have heard that they give those registering Republican extra jalapenos in their tacos (kidding!!!!)….and those registering Democrat get more meat in theirs (-;

  9. Griffin says:

    Wall street Journal Op-ed struck by bizarre afflication of sanity. I’m sure Murdoch will have someone look into it.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-hatred-derangement-syndrome-1475192121

    • 1mime says:

      As I have mentioned before on this blog, the commentators to the WSJ can get down in the gutter with the best of them. The thing to remember if you peruse the comments is that most of the subscribers to the WSJ have a modicum of education and net worth or they wouldn’t be interested in this journal. When you read their remarks, think about the fact that these are likely white men (and some white women), and they are far from working class.

      As Homer stated earlier – let that little nugget sink in a bit.

    • RobA says:

      Sooooo….kinda sounds like an endorsement, no?

      Not that those things matter, but I feel like if ANY newspaper endorsements matter, the WSJ endorsing Clinton would matter.

      • 1mime says:

        No, I would be shocked if any paper Murdoch owns would endorse Clinton. This was a member of the editorial board, so they may have wanted to float their concerns but their readership (check the comments) is all Trump….

      • 1mime says:

        The WSJ editor, Rabinowitz, who wrote the opinion today endorsing HRC, was a guest on Lawrence O’Donnell’s Show tonight. She said the Journal allows their editors to express their opinions freely and that she felt she had to stand up for HRC and against Trump regardless of others’ views. She stated that she understood Clinton’s faults but that when compared to Trump, the difference was so significant that she felt she had to speak out as a long-time editor of the Journal. So, she did. She doesn’t know if any of the other editors will present their opinions in an op-ed, but she said she felt it was imperative to point out how totally unfit DJT is for POTUS.

  10. objv says:

    Let’s say for now, that I think that a Trump presidency would be much better for minorities than a Hillary presidency.

    Griffin, as I promised yesterday, I’ll try to defend my apparently absurd/insane comment.

    —————————————————

    First of all, what evidence do we have that a Hillary presidency would benefit minorities? African Americans’ votes are usually taken for granted by Democrats. Promises are made but rarely kept. Will anything change?

    Racial tensions are increasing, income inequality is getting worse, and violent protests have broken out in cities throughout the US despite having our first black president and Democrat run big cities. Will any of this change with the election of Hillary? What is she going to be doing differently than what is currently being done?

    What exactly has Hillary done for minorities? If history is any guide, Hillary is going to take care of Hillary – and Bill and Chelsea and Huma and the legion of donors and others that she owes favors to before anything else.

    Bernie was right in highlighting Hillary’s connection to big banks, corporate interests and foreign entities. NOTHING will change and minorities will still be given the shaft.

    Donald Trump is an arrogant jerk. I have no problem in admitting that, but at least he wants to reign in corporate abuses and hold companies accountable for money and jobs funneled abroad. In the debates, he would have won if he had kept his focus on that and national security issues.

    The American people of all ethnicities have a mess of a government that needs to be cleaned up. We have a shrinking middle class, companies that find it more profitable to move headquarters overseas to avoid taxes, scary security breaches, a porous border and conflicts in the Middle East with no end in sight.

    What will we get with Hillary? Isn’t one definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result?

    • flypusher says:

      “First of all, what evidence do we have that a Hillary presidency would benefit minorities? African Americans’ votes are usually taken for granted by Democrats. Promises are made but rarely kept. Will anything change?”

      Trump wants to bring back stop and frisk. A counterproductive, harmful, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL practice. What do Black people have to lose? 4th Amendment rights for starters. Even IF HRC did nothing, and that’s an IF that strains all credibility, it’s still better than someone who is promising to trample your rights.

      Poll numbers show that Black voters can smell a con far better than you can.

      • 1mime says:

        Black voters can smell a con…..

        Why? Their very lives depend upon it.

      • RobA says:

        It’s a little hard for Hillary and Dems to “do something” to help minorities when they get stalled at every corner by obstructionist Republicans.

        It’s just the same old GOP playbook:

        1. Complain gov’t is broken
        2. Enact policies designed to break gov’t OR obstruct policies designed to help it function
        3. Say “see?! We told you”
        4. Profit

        What do Dems do for minorities? Well, they’re fighting hard to stop the GoP from disenfranchising them. If Dems wernt leading the charge, the GoP would get away with their voting suppression laws. It’s becUse of Dems making an issue of it that we even know about it.

        They also passed the ACA (over intense GOP resistance) , which was a huge boost for minority communities

        Dems are the only party preventing the GOP from gutting inner city schools completely, the only party fighting to get relief for Flint, the only party trying to stop deep, deep cuts to the social safety net (which disproportionately hurts minorities due to higher poverty levels), the only party that says that black lives matter, the only party who will admit “systemic racism” is a thing.

        It rings a little hollow to blame the Dems for the plight of minorities when they’ve got their hands full trying to protect them from the party that has control of the House, a Congress which is indifferent to minorities at best, and outright hostile at worst.

      • 1mime says:

        Great response, Rob. Much more detailed than my own…..Republicans would like people to believe that Democrats don’t do anything for them (Chris had a post describing this) because it feeds into the narrative that all Dems want are their votes. Well, all Republicans want of the working class are “their votes” and they don’t deliver any benefits to these people…which is why so many of them are pissed. Dems, OTOH, as you noted in your list, deliver….

        There was a Pew study just released that looked at how for the first time, people of color and working class, had their personal economic situations improve significantly. THAT has happened through educational and economic opportunity and safety net programs that give people a hand up. There is still much to be done but there is no comparison between what Democrats have done for minorities and what Republicans have done. Not.even.close.

      • RobA says:

        Indeed Mime. If the GoP wanted to be accurate, they would say:

        “What have the Dems ever done for minorities? Look at how poorly a job they’re doing defending them from our attacks!! That is some shoddy defense!!”

      • Creigh says:

        Two points: “He wants to rein in corporate abuses.” What has he proposed, besides lower taxes for high incomes? He wants to back out of NAFTA, but those corporations moved overseas without NAFTA or TPP. Also, I’m no fan of Sec. Clinton, but clearly the emails were poor judgement but not illegal, and not even done with intent to cover anything inappropriate as far as the evidence I’ve seen so far. And Benghazi was, as far as I can tell, an unfortunate choice on the part of the Ambassador. “But Hillary” is no better an excuse than “But Obama.”

    • Griffin says:

      Trump will rein in corporate abuses? Trump? Who wants his blind trust handled by his children? Who admires post-Sovier kleptocracies? Whose entire life has moving betweening committing some of the worst of those abuses?

      • flypusher says:

        Let’s also not forget Trump’s threats against the First Amendment. He wants to sue the WaPo so bad, for saying true things about him that were not flattering.

      • objv says:

        fly, Interestingly, Trump had named Amazon as a company that dodged taxes by moving its global headquarters to Luxemburg.

        http://www.newsweek.com/behind-amazons-tax-strategy-494325

        Disclaimer: Dear Jeff Bezos, someone else must have taken control of my computer to post that nasty link. I LOVE Amazon and am a Prime member. I love two day shipping; I love paying no taxes on my orders. Nothing personal, right?

      • flypusher says:

        “fly, Interestingly, Trump had named Amazon as a company that dodged taxes by moving its global headquarters to Luxemburg.”

        Which has exactly WHAT to do with Trump’s desire to make it easier to sue journalists who print say things he doesn’t like.

        Like Trump, you try to deflect. But you are trying that dodge on the wrong person. Address the point. Do you value freedom of the press or not?

      • 1mime says:

        I suspect the Amazon move was more about criticism of Trump not paying any taxes….I’m disappointed with Amazon for off-shoring. This is a tremendously successful company worth billions and they not only can afford to pay taxes, they “should” pay taxes.

      • objv says:

        fly, Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post. The WaPo coverage became increasingly negative after Trump attacked both Amazon and the reporting. I had a subscription to the Post but canceled after the articles seemed to loose all objectivity.

        I’ll probably subscribe again after the election, because I really did enjoy some of their articles. (Have I mentioned love Amazon and have a Kindle addiction?) Unfortunately, it seems that personal vindictiveness has gotten in the way of fair reporting.

      • flypusher says:

        “fly, Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post. The WaPo coverage became increasingly negative after Trump attacked both Amazon and the reporting. I had a subscription to the Post but canceled after the articles seemed to loose all objectivity.”

        You are still evading. This issue goes FAR beyond the WaPo, but like typical dishonest internet debaters you cling to that one particular thing and refuse to actually look at the heresy Trump proposes:

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432037/donald-trump-libel-it-not-if-its-true

        Expanding libel lawsuits against people who say things that are unflattering, but true- you endorse that when you vote for Trump. Again, how deplorable. How totally UN-American.

        You admit that Trump’s a jerk, yet you don’t get the negative coverage? If I had doubts about Chris’ integrity, and were prone to conspiracy theories, I accuse the two of you of colluding to make the point about Trump supporters taking leave of their senses. But since he has such a long track record of good solid logical political commentary, I conclude it’s just lucky circumstance that a genuine deluded Trump supporter keeps proving him right.

    • flypusher says:

      “Donald Trump is an arrogant jerk. I have no problem in admitting that, but at least he wants to reign in corporate abuses and hold companies accountable for money and jobs funneled abroad. In the debates, he would have won if he had kept his focus on that and national security issues.”

      If my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. Trump can’t do any better than point out a few problems, like the blind squirrel finding the occasional nut. But he’d rather throw a twitter tantrum like a spoiled child rather than do his homework. Why should I or anyone else have any faith in his economic proposals? His business career is oozing with slime. He won’t take advice. He can’t control himself. HE CANNOT DO THIS JOB.

      • 1mime says:

        Can you envision a Donald Trump giving of himself in this manner? He’d probably put the kids on the receiving line…on second thought, the girls would be an improvement – the sons, not so much. For all the critically important functions and decisions required of a President, there are also the mundane but important daily scheduled activities…

    • bubbabobcat says:

      OV (paraphrasing): “Trump would have won the debate if he weren’t so stupid and undisciplined.”

      Tremendous insight. Yuuuge.

      Shoulda, coulda, woulda.

      In other prescient observations, if people didn’t stop breathing, they wouldn’t be dead…

      • Griffin says:

        Also Trump would be a really good candidate if he wasn’t a racist, narcisstic, sociopathic, misogynistic, impulsive, paranoid demagogue and had some grasp of basic economics, foreign policy, and general policy-making.

      • 1mime says:

        Griffin, Have you ever been able to view Joy Reed on MSNBC? Watched her tonight and she is so politically savy and sharp.

      • RobA says:

        And my softball team could beat the NY Yankees if they wernt far more talented then us.

        Trump IS undisciplined and stupid. He can’t change himself.

    • Sir Magpie De Crow says:

      Objv,

      I have a small question. Hopefully I can express it as artfully and as elegantly as possible.

      Have you been mind f**ked lately into believing anything Trump says? Believing one thing he says is dangerous enough.

      A person as self interested in himself that he would mutilate the reputations of those beneath him (including a gold star family, a disabled reporter, a former beauty queen contestant and a respected latino federal judge) is someone who has no genuine interest in anything other than his ascent in this world over all other humans.

      If that idea can’t seep in perhaps you should consider brain surgery. I hear Ben Carson is pretty good at.

      You speak of minorities/blacks and what might be best for them. Well guess what I talk to them and they don’t sound like the obedient black pastors who are getting their pockets lined with Trump ingots.

      I submit you don’t know sh*t about black/colored people, their struggles and their continued fight against the bigotry that is being normalized by Trump and his surrogates.

      I even have African-Americans in my vast extended family. They are businessmen (and businesswomen), college graduates, blue collar workers, artists, writers and accountants.

      They despise this a$$h*le with a passion I haven’t seen since Rush Limbaugh call Obama a “Halfrican-American”.

      They know the score, they know the implication and the viral nature when conservatives shot their mouths off like that.

      Trump and his father did everything they could to keep blacks and latinos out of their properties. He fought the government tooth and nail over this… settled… and to this day despite that legal contrition never admitted fault.

      In essence “Why the hell would I give my vote to someone who wouldn’t rent to me or my family without being forced by the federal government?”

      Objv, you give a good song and dance about how Hillary is the worst of two evils but she never help make colored people homeless in New York City because of the color of their skin.

      Why don’t you think about that when discussing corruption and evil?

      The people I know of know this story of housing discrimination and have made note of Trump’s unwillingness to seek actual forgiveness or make a full-throated apology. That is not Democratic propaganda, that is the unvarnished truth.

      You speak of them as if their are brain dead political sheep when the many people of color I know are scholars.

      That truth is why the people who are close to my heart say over and over again regardless how this election shakes out Trump should never be president.

      Their voices and their legitimate concerns is something you should maybe spend a little more f**king time thinking about and remembering.

      • 1mime says:

        We hear you, Sir Crow. Minorities may not be pleased at everything that the Clinton’s have done or not done, but they damn straight know which party has their back. Is there more that is needed? Sure, but when Flint, MI was cut out of the budget proposal, who went down to the wire for this majority black community? This is just one recent legislative example that illustrates why minorities trust – yes, “trust” Democrats more than they do Republicans.

        No state speaks racism and bigotry more clearly than North Carolina. This red state has done all it could to disenfranchize black and poor people through patently obvious gerrymandering and voter ID laws. The federal courts (absent dear old Scalia) has been the blue wall separating democracy from plutocracy in NC. Repentent? Not on your life, as you will shortly read:

        http://nypost.com/2016/09/30/gun-rights-group-raffles-ar-15-rifle-with-hillary-clinton-portrait/

    • tuttabellamia says:

      OV, I think Mr. Trump would be bad not just for minorities but also for White people.

      Mrs. Clinton may not be the perfect candidate. She has her foibles, but Mr. Trump is way worse. I admit I will vote for Mrs. Clinton primarily to vote against Mr. Trump, and it seems you’re voting for Mr. Trump mainly to vote against Mrs. Clinton.

      It’s sad that this election has devolved into a “lesser of two evils” race.

      So be it. The saga continues, but with only 39 days left until election day. Prayers for our great nation. Good night.

    • Turtles Run says:

      As a minorities I can count on Democrats to protect my rights. That when I look back at the past few decades I see Democrats letting us at the table to be a part of the process. Are they perfect, no but they are a heck of a lot better than the alternative the right wing has offered.

      We understand full well what the current GOP wants to do to use, they are hardly subtle about it. We are constantly scapegoated for the nations ills and called lazy and takers because we did not get a few hundred years head start in developing the institutions. We know we are better off today than yesterday but that does not mean we will forget. But hey thanks for the constant reminders. That some still want to “Make America Great Again”.

  11. 1mime says:

    Idiocy has its benefits – IF – you are Vladmir Putin, or another unfriendly power. There are several bits of information in this post that you will want to explore, but the basic tenet stands: fools will be used, and Trump is indisputably a fool.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/137333/donald-trump-useful-idiot-dangerous-people?utm_source=New+Republic&utm_campaign=0e49d0e6f7-Daily_Newsletter_9_30_169_30_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c4ad0aba7e-0e49d0e6f7-59579285

      • 1mime says:

        Note, this presentation is in 2 parts. One thing I learned from the President in response to a question about the veto of the 9/11 legislation, is that those who lost their lives in this attack received on average, $2 million from a victim’s support fund. He didn’t use that as a reason that the families should not “need” financial relief, only that many people do not know about the money they did receive. It will not bring any loved one back, but I did not know the size of the compensation. He predicts Congress will have to claw this legislation back in a way that allows some recourse without negating America’s “sovereign immunity”. Very thoughtful response….and, he was correct, imo, to veto the legislation “as written”. The President doesn’t get to black out the language in a bill that he doesn’t agree with – in this case, his only recourse was the veto. Shame on Congress for not working with him to develop a better piece of legislation in honor of the survivors of this tragedy. Shame on Congress for claiming it was “his fault” the legislation wasn’t amended.

      • 1mime says:

        I actually found the second part of the CNN Military Forum to be the better of the two. It showcased Pres. Obama in such human, warm interaction with individual members of the military audience. It was profound. If you can, take time to watch it and it will make you proud of our men and women in the armed services, their families and our president. The last ten minutes was powerful.

    • Creigh says:

      A chilling sentence from the TNR piece: “The through line connecting all hypotheses is that authoritarian regimes benefit, domestically and internationally, when democratic ones are weakened or discredited.”

      I see attempts to weaken or discredit our government every day. By no means are all these efforts coming from outside the country.

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        attempts to weaken or discredit our government

        Yes, and it makes me wonder how much the R’s continuous demeaning of government plays into the percentage of people willing to vote for tRump.

        It’s so bad, how could it be worse with him?

    • flypusher says:

      Sorry about the sorry post, old iPhones are sometimes flakey.

    • RobA says:

      I predict we’ll see more of this. The biggest factor, IMO, is that the election is only 30 or so days away. Even if Trump wins, for 90% of these ppl, the checks will stop.

      6 months ago, you were giving up 6 months of paychecks to take a principled stand. If it’s only 2 weeks worth, might make all the difference.

  12. Sir Magpie De Crow says:

    Jesus!
    Looks like Hillary Clinton has truly mindf***ed her debate opponent into committing this latest act of twitter insanity.

    This is really where we are at? A presidential candidate who asks his followers on twitter to check out some woman’s (unproven/almost 100% non-existent) sex tape? This is grotesque to a profound degree that words fail me.

    Can’t he see the political value of moving on from this.

    Even if this “tape” existed, will it help stop ISIS, improve the lot of unemployed males in this country or lead to an end of the destructive aftermath of mass incarceration?

    You know, important issues.

    A lot of people are thinking on all sides “nope”.
    So why is Trump talking about this?

    This has to be the action of a raging, unrepentant and unambiguous misogynist.

    I couldn’t sleep well at night signing onto something like this. Much less punish people for rightly choosing the high road.

    And to think, Priebus and the rest of the “Nazis In Name Only” that have sided with Trump are going to punish Republicans for opposing this?

    As one twitter user so elegantly put it, “We have gone from “shining city on a hill” to “check out the sex tape.”

    I guess the Cult of Reagan is well and truly dead.
    Hard to imagine him signing onto this sh*t.

    If it takes being on Team Hillary to put a stake through the heart of this monstrous political moment and make the National GOP never endorse something like this again… please f***ing sign me up.

    • 1mime says:

      BTW, this tweet of Trumps about Machado’s “sex tape”? It was made at 4am….must have been having a bad dream and awakened with this on his mind (-;

      Per NPR discussion, no one has been able to locate “said” sex tape so I guess the GOP will enlist the aid of the dude who fabricated the ACORN and PP tapes…..

      • RobA says:

        Mime, tweeting “Check out the sex tape!” At 4:30 AM probably isn’t going to help with those cokey-sniffy rumours lol

    • flypusher says:

      There are so many reason to say no to Trump as President, and we’ve gone over them many times here, but if we’re picking the top one, this is it. He has all the restraint and judgment and self-control of a 2 year old who missed nap time. How can anybody think it’s a good idea to give this fool the power to order other Americans into harms way????

      • RobA says:

        Yep.

        The specifics of the case – the overt sexism, the rudeness – is just the window dressing.

        The true reason this is prob Trumps worst mistake yet is it shows how truly terrible his judgement is, how truly thin his skin is, and how truly pathetic he must be inside.

        This little episode paints a portrait of someone with serious, deep seated psychological issues.

        But hey, Hillary’s got those emails, amiright!?

    • Griffin says:

      Me thinks he won’t participate in the next debates after this. The only “out” I can even think of is claiming/lying that an intern or someone else was put in charge of the Donald’s twitter and they were the ones who tweeted it. I don’t see another escape hatch available, so I’m expecting that to be the line the Trump campaign uses.

      • We’ve been through this before and in as close as you can get to a minuscule, still statistically relevant chance without actually being nonexistent, there is no way Trump skips out on the debates. He’s way too unhinged and pissed off right now to let people think him a coward, afraid to debate a woman again.

      • Griffin says:

        In that case Hillary’s going to bring up this episode and drive him even crazier, obviously. I don’t think I even want to know what Trump does when he’s sent flying ever further off the deep end.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I find it chilling that the presidential debates have devolved into psychological warfare.

        What will Mr. Trump do now in retaliation? Produce Monica’s blue dress at the next debate? If so, I hope Mrs. Clinton just laughs it off.

        I look forward to some boring, run-of-the-mill debating. Bring on the vice-presidential debate.

      • 1mime says:

        I look forward to some boring presidential governance.

      • flypusher says:

        “I find it chilling that the presidential debates have devolved into psychological warfare.”

        That’s entirely on Trump and his lack of self control. Hillary has every right to make that an issue because self control matters. If trump can be so easily baited, the voters ought to know.

      • Griffin says:

        Can’t you all see the opportunity in all this? We could start a TV show where all the candidates have to get along in a really big house but then we throw a curveball in mid-season when their spouses move in as well! And at the end of every other week the audience votes someone off the show and the last one left is president. Yes American democracy would be further weakened but think of the drama! Oh it would be wonderful.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Fly, I agree. The psychological warfare began with Mr. Trump’s taunts about “low energy” and “Little Marco” and “Lying Ted.”

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Griffin, this election cycle has been one big reality show.

        I also think that Mr. Trump has been infected by the social media worm. It eats away at his brain at all hours of the day and night. He seems to be obsessed and addicted to Twitter. He is just one more social media casualty like so many other “users.”

        Social media will be the death of us all. But a presidential candidate is supposed to be better than that.

      • 1mime says:

        Maybe Trump is “practicing” being awake for the infamous “3:00 am call”…..which is not necessarily a bad thing…given his penchant for not practicing at all (-;

    • Josh Barro thinks Clinton ran a perfect psyops campaign on Trump. I agree. Wonder what she’ll hit him with at the next debate?

      http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-trump-alicia-machado-miss-universe-trap-2016-9

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 474 other followers

%d bloggers like this: