Monday, August 26, 2019

Here We Go Again

Another conservative has taken to the op-ed page to explain why it's not his fault that he's going to vote for Trump, we're leaving him no choice!


No one votes to be despised. If Democrats don't change their pitch, I may switch to Trump.

 Michael Smith, Opinion contributor,USA TODAY Opinio 

Image result for here we go again gif

God, is there really this much of a market for this genre of literature? The "I know Trump is an incompetent, senile, racist megalomaniac whose presidency threatens life on Earth, but the Democrats hurt my wittle feewings so I may be forced to vote for him" article seems to be the surest way to get published these days.

I am not a President Trump supporter. But if the alternative to him in next year’s election is open borders and the Green New Deal, I may become a Trump voter.

Okay, first of all, none of the Democratic Presidential candidates is advocating for open borders. Not a one of them. You have to know this. There is no way that someone who gets paid to write about politics doesn't know this. So you're already off on the wrong foot - we know you're a disingenuous weasel.
Secondly, are you seriously taking the position that a plan to address the climate crisis that threatens to make the planet unlivable is somehow more horrifying than 4 more years of Cheeto Mussolini?

Image result for you're not serious gif

The president has earned a lot of the heat that comes his way. His reluctance to condemn the white nationalists at Charlottesville in 2017 was inexcusable. He questioned Barack Obama’s citizenship even after the man produced a birth certificate. His feuds with kneeling NFL players and other black celebrities serve no purpose except to stir the pot.

That's it? That's what you think is the problem with Orange Julius Caesar? You know he's putting children in concentration camps, right? Him being a racist dick kinda pales in comparison with taking children away from their parents and locking them in concentration camps.

The full list is long and ugly. It would speak for itself if Trump’s opponents would let it.

Yeah. . . no one is stopping the list from speaking for itself. We would add to your list his disastrous trade wars, his frequent suggestions that he can rule by executive fiat, his cozying up to murderous dictators and PUTTING CHILDREN INTO CONCENTRATION CAMPS, but we certainly aren't stopping his malfeasance from speaking for itself.

The full list is long and ugly. It would speak for itself if Trump’s opponents would let it.
They haven’t. Instead they’ve trafficked in hysteria and hyperbole, particularly in their response to the El Paso, Texas, shooting. Democrats fell over themselves to implicate the president’s rhetoric and policies. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pronounced Trump “directly responsible” for the massacre because of his rhetoric.
Imagine. Having never met the gunman, the freshman congresswoman looked into his heart and determined that he wouldn’t have killed if not for Trump.

Gee, I wonder where she could have gotten such a wild idea? Why in the world would she place any responsibility for this mass shooting on Trump?
Hmmm. . . well, maybe it could be because of . . .

El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language

At campaign rallies before last year’s midterm elections, President Trump repeatedly warned that America was under attack by immigrants heading for the border. “You look at what is marching up, that is an invasion!” he declared at one rally. “That is an invasion!”
Nine months later, a 21-year-old white man is accused of opening fire in a Walmart in El Paso, killing 20 people and injuring dozens more after writing a manifesto railing against immigration and announcing that “this attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

Nah, that couldn't be it.
Probably she's just crazy!

Image result for crazy gesture gif

Its current trajectory gives the Democratic Party two problems in 2020. First, the agenda: a spending spree like no country has ever attempted, supposedly financed by a handful of wealthy taxpayers. What could go wrong?

You're right! We should totally stick with the plan of spending obscene, unimaginable amounts of money on maintaining a global military empire while constantly reducing the amount of tax dollars that flow into the treasury. That's just sound economic policy! Not some crazy pie-in-the-sky like having the people with the most money actually pay for the most necessary task our government has ever faced.It obviously makes more sense to give the people with the most money tax breaks, and just continue to finance everything with borrowing until a Democrat takes office. At which time, deficits magically become unsustainable once again.

Second, the message to voters. Progressives have long denounced America as hopelessly retrograde and racist. Naturally, they’re talking about everyone except themselves

See, now that's not rue either.
America is retrograde and racist, but not hopelessly so.
Hope springs eternal!
And certainly no Democratic candidate for President or any other office has ever claimed that she was. So, I don't know which voters are supposedly getting this "message," but it ain't coming from any of these folks.

Image result for democratic candidates

The insult-them-until-they-join-our-side strategy has gained devotees since the mass shootings. While at least seven presidential candidates have called Trump a white supremacist, the president's supporters don't want to be called the same simply for voting for Republicans.

Oh, that seems reasonable. Just because you voted for a blatant racist, continue to support that blatant racist, and intend to vote to re-elect that blatant racist doesn't mean that anyone should think you a racist!
Look, just because I wear a Giants cap and a 49ers hoodie doesn't mean you should assume that I'm a San Francisco sports fan!

The contempt descended into incoherence even before the shootings. Candidate Andrew Yang matter-of-factly predicts the disappearance of millions of low-skill jobs. Yet he and his party argue for essentially allowing millions of low-skill workers to enter the country without consequences.

Yeah, the problem of jobs being automated out of existence is a good reason we ahould send refugees back to the countries from which they fled in terror.

If you work in an industry likely to absorb some of that labor, you might wonder if this is how the Democrats plan to revive their brand as champion of the little guy. Are you the little guy they have in mind, or have you slipped a bit on their list?

And there it is.
The obligatory "democrats love brown people and not us whites" line. Or maybe it's more "Democrats love foreigners more than us real Americans," but either way, it's essentially the same appeal. It boils down to "Democrats care more about some 'other' than they do about us regular folks."  And you could make that point about many if not most Dems if the "other" you're referring to is the donor class of Wall Street and Silicon Valley, but you could definitely say that about 100% of Republicans.

Partisans who can’t imagine anything worse than losing history’s quintessential hold-your-nose election should picture coming to the rematch with a perfectly pleasant candidate, finding the opponent as nasty as ever, and losing again anyway.

Now that is actually a good point. We can NOT afford to repeat the mistakes of 2016. We can not put up another bland, inoffensive centrist, hoping that Trump's inherent detestability will will force voters to choose the only other viable option. That never works.

The swing voters who will decide the next election won’t care whether Democrats rate Donald Trump a racist or a white nationalist or a white supremacist. With the left’s favorite epithet flying around the political sphere more freely than ever, and the definition of racism facing possible expansion, they’ll want to know what Democrats think of them.

Oh, the swing voters! Yes, let's all grovel for the approval of the swing voters! Both of them.
here's the thing about the elusive swing voters. We don't need them. To the extent that they exist, we don't need them. If Democrats turn out their  base, they win. They did it in 2008 and 2012. The difference between 08/12 and 2016 wasn't that these supposed swing voters went for Trump. Trump got fewer votes than McCain or Romney got when they lost to Barack Obama. The problem was that Hillary Clinton got fewer votes than Obama did in either of those years.

The problem was that too many people didn't vote at all. And obviously, a lot of that was due to Republicans' various voter-suppression techniques. Of course that had a lot to do with it. But HRC just didn't excite the electorate the way that Obama did. It's not her fault, she just doesn't have that charisma. Well, it was partly her fault for saying that the things Democrats want, like single-payer healthcare and a $15/hr minimum wage were pipe dreams. That's just bad campaign strategy. And also ignoring the Rust Belt because your stupid fucking algorhithms say you don't need to isn't very smart electioneering either. But we're getting way off track here.

Image result for off track gif

Also, you say that the "swing voters" won't care if Democrats call Trump a racist?
Great. Trump's a racist.

Image result for larry david trump's a racist gif

And I'm not sure what you mean by the definition of racism "facing possible expansion." Actually, I think I do know. You mean the definition of racism shouldn't include any views that you personally hold. You want the word racism to be defined as "cross-burning," or "waving the swastika flag" or whatever, so you can feel like you're not a racist when you support putting children into concentration camps.
So, you know what? You want to vote for Trump? Go right ahead. We don't need you. You don't matter. But don't try to blame us for your support of this racist bastard.

Confusing headline of the day

The ‘1619 Project’ Isn’t Anti-American — It’s Anti-White Identity Politics

It's honestly hard to tell what the headline-writer is trying to say here.
Is he saying that the 1619 Project is engaging in identity politics that are anti-white?
Or is he saying that the 1619 project is against "white identity politics?'

Is it  (anti-white) identity politics?
Or Anti- (white identity politics?)

Skimming the article, I'm pretty sure it's the latter, but come on New York Magazine Intelligencier. Surely you can do better than this.