Trying to understand the Trump candidacy, Part 3

Hi, Marion (faithful reader!),

I’m way up in the cheap seats. Here are some jottings from what I’ve seen since I last wrote

Recent buzz:

– The suggestion that Sarah Palin should be gang raped draws silence from feminist groups. So? One thing that has become pretty obvious is that feminism was only ever about free abortion on demand and preferential hiring for women. And now that they have them, feminism is about protecting them.

Marion, as you know, it’s hard to get many feminists to speak out even against honour killings or FGM, never mind to denounce the suggestion that women politicians should be intimidated by the threat of rape. Expect worse weather in this region, I fear.

– Oh, and the so-far-uncensored Ann Coulter observed recently, “Republicans used to be appalled by guttersnipe, lying political operators like the Clintons. Now they are guttersnipe, lying political operators like the Clintons.”

Ann rarely misses the point, but here I fear she has. The problem isn’t that they are guttersnipe, lying politicians. It’s that they no longer represent the Americans who are asked to vote for them. They actually despise their base. Even a guttersnipe might help you sometime, might even grudgingly respect you. But … not that lot, not ever. The Dems are in much better shape because they like and understand their base, who just want to be looked after by Nanny.

Oh and you asked about the Panama Papers: The recent discovery of the Papers simplifies the overall political picture because they show clearly that global elites will work against their own countries in pursuit of their goals as a class.

Essentially, citizens of those countries who choose to listen to establishment political parties in light of that knowledge have made a moral choice for which they can be held accountable.

By the way, do you suppose that anyone who thinks about it really believes that the leaders the Panama Papers brought to light were the only ones doing it?

The development of such a ruling class — akin to the intermarried royal families of Europe centuries ago — is an outcome of globalization. Countries that wish to retain democratic traditions must check out of the globalization that is now under way. Most of the world isn’t democratic and, fatuities dismissed, isn’t even trying to be.

But that brings us back to Hill Clinton, doesn’t it? Recently, I was hearing still more buzz that the e-mail trail shows that Clinton knew perfectly well that the fatal attack on the US embassy in Benghazi was not the result of an amateur video, as she claimed.

But so? Hill’s voters should be voting for welfare, as their jobs are being exported or automated, and non-citizen competition is there to stay. That embassy road kill is incidental, and lying is merely what Hill must do when people appear not to understand that fact.

On reflection, many Americans—to save face—must pretend that criminality and corruption in the highest offices is still something they can afford to care about. But if they could, Clinton wouldn’t be a candidate for President at all, would she?

Speaking of Clinton and those who probably should vote for her, some claim that Americans spend more on taxes than on food, clothing and shelter combined.

So what are the implications of reducing the proportion of income tax payers relative to the adult population? Not necessarily what we might think.

Such taxpayers have a certain type of power over government. It may well be in the progressive government’s interests to raise money from them in other ways. Sales taxes, sin taxes, onerous demands for compliance with government policy, and fines, among other levies, have the advantage that they don’t empower the people paying them.

And when income tax payers decline in proportion to the population, they are also easier to scapegoat for general failures. Progressives always need plenty of scapegoats.

Back soon!

See also: Trying to understand the Trump candidacy Part 1

Trying to understand the Trump candidacy Part 2

  • Ann Coulter observed recently, “Republicans used to be appalled by guttersnipe, lying political operators like the Clintons. Now they are guttersnipe, lying political operators like the Clintons.”

    Ain’t it the truth;)

    • Yes but, as above, “Ann rarely misses the point, but here I fear she has. The problem isn’t that they are guttersnipe, lying politicians. It’s that they no longer represent the Americans who are asked to vote for them. They actually despise their base. Even a guttersnipe might help you sometime, might even grudgingly respect you. But … not that lot, not ever. The Dems are in much better shape because they like and understand their base, who just want to be looked after by Nanny.”

      • Well that is the crux of it. I heard from American readers after the last election about how they felt abandoned by the GOP, I found it a little surprising to be honest and had no idea how deep that sentiment ran until it exploded this go round.

        Though I think Coulter may be referring to the GOP elite’s disdain for Trump supporters.

        • BCF, if the GOP elite’s disdain were only for Trump supporters, they would be agonizing far more about what they did – unbeknownst – to alienate them. Silence tells. They also certainly wouldn’t encourage sympathetic writers to insult them. Contempt tells. Neither sells.

    • Trump openly said he wants a stop of Muslim immigration, until we figure it out.

      Talk, talk, talk.

      His stand on Muslim immigration “until we figure it out”, is all I need to know.

      If we could get by with Obama’s willful attempts to destroy this country, we can easily get by with Trump’s other views.

      Trump. And screw the establishment politicians. They all need a kick in the butt.

  • john700

    Here’s what I understood so far: Trump is a Clinton plant and so far he did what he was supposed to do: divide the party, make some good ideas looking bad in the eyes of the general electorate and keep away some constituencies from the Republicans (women and Hispanics).
    I hope I am wrong.

    • I would suggest you ascribe too much to the Clinton’s despicable as they may be, they ain’t the Illuminati;)

      • john700

        When he announced, my first thought was that he is a Clinton plant. Likely, they promised him something like exclusive casino rights in Cuba.

    • The sort of people who vote “women!” or “Hispanic!” would not vote for a genuine Republican candidate anyway. Republicans would only appeal to people who consider interest group membership a matter of personal choice. So were that Clinton’s strategy, she would be going to a lot of trouble for little extra return.

  • Ron MacDonald

    I believe Trump is working with the Clinton’s to divide the Republican vote.

    • dance…dancetotheradio

      I believe you’re Irish.

  • David Smith

    From; What elitists mean by Trumps vulgarity by Don Surber

    Sitting here in Poca, West Virginia, I notice no difference between the socialists and some of these He-Man Trump Haters. Their ranks are dominated by professors, tax-exempt thinkers, and trust fund babies. It is not that Washington is filled with people who live in a bubble per se. That is a stereotype. The problem is Washington is filled with bubbleheads. They think they know it all. They reject any new idea that does not conform to their vision of the world. For all their intellectualism, they sure are a close-minded lot.

    Question free trade? How vulgar.

    Build a wall? How vulgar.

    Question Muslim immigration? How vulgar.

    Reduce legal immigration? How vulgar.

    Question NATO? How vulgar.

    Consider a one-time tax increase? How vulgar.

    This lot of conservative elitists is like the global warming crowd. They piss in your shoe and then show you a chart that says it is raining. That is my reaction to the nonsense that free trade has actually created jobs. No, in my area of West Virginia, free trade replaced $60,000 a year chemical industry jobs with $20,000 a year jobs at Wal-Mart.

    Bonus: Wal-Mart began by selling only American made products. Those jobs would have existed regardless of whether we kept those chemical industry jobs.

    Trump scares the crap out of the Conservative Commentariat. They are so desperate that they are backing Cruz, whose over-preening ambition turned off the Bush 43 White House and the Senate. Conservatives like Epstein fear Trump.

    And by Trump, I mean the Trumpkins because they are vulgar. And they are vulgar because their ideas are revolutionary.