16 Apr 2016

Why I Can’t Take Jonah Goldberg’s Anti-Trumpism Seriously

Trump 48 Comments

Scott Sumner linked with approval to this Jonah Goldberg article lamenting how ever more people are having their bodies snatched and now support Trump.

Anyway, I was OK with Jonah’s piece for a while, until he had to write this:

I concede that for conservatives living in swing states, this is a legitimately painful decision. Clinton and Sanders alike would be horror shows. But my answer is simple: I will never vote for Trump and I will never vote for Hillary or Bernie. Period.

It’s easy for me to say that because I live in Washington, D.C. Indeed, I’ve never lived anywhere where my vote hasn’t been canceled out at least seven to one. The important question for me is, how will I write and speak about this stuff professionally? Counting this “news”letter, I write about 14 columns a month. Throw in blog posts, magazine articles, spoken-word poetry, Fox News hits, and all of my mime work and suffice it to say, I can’t exactly hide from my opinions. I’ve never been in a situation where I couldn’t defend, broadly speaking, the Republican nominee or president. I’ve criticized them all, but in the fundamental arguments of the day, I’ve always sided with the more conservative party, which has been the GOP. There’s nothing Trump can do that would make me vote for Hillary Clinton. But if Trump is the nominee or the president, I will for the first time be working outside the familiar binaries of the two-party system. I guess I should ask the guys at Reason magazine or Cato how they cope.

One option is to just go full Mencken and just own the fact I am a man without a party.

Let’s review. George W. Bush:

1) Expanded prescription drug coverage for seniors, which cost an estimated $318 billion over its first ten years, and has been described as the biggest expansion of the welfare state (at that time, of course) since LBJ.

2) Nationalized banks.

3) Oversaw a worldwide network of CIA secret prisons.

4) Led the United States to invade another country either through incompetence or lying.

But Trump is somehow qualitatively worse than this, such that Jonah Goldberg is now thinking maybe he should consider more than two candidates in this election?

How can a smart guy like Sumner, who calls himself a libertarian, link to this in good conscience?

STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT LIKE DONALD TRUMP.

48 Responses to “Why I Can’t Take Jonah Goldberg’s Anti-Trumpism Seriously”

  1. E. Harding says:

    Or a certain Mitt Romney. What’s so different about Trump and Romney? Both liked bailouts. Both flip-flopped on abortion, gun control, and healthcare. Both are “very conservative” in name only. Only difference is that Romney was somehow popular in the cities, while Trump has won all the counties that have never went Democrat since 1868 in the primaries.

    • E. Harding says:

      *The sole exception to this is Ottawa County, MI, which voted Democratic in 1864.

  2. E. Harding says:

    Personally, I hated Romney, and preferred Obama to him. Given Obama’s utterly disastrous second term (much worse than his first), I’m doubtful my original preference was correct, but am still by no means certain Romney/Ryan would have made a better Prez/VP. I voted for Trump. At least he’s openly unprincipled.

    • Gene Callahan says:

      I disagree with lots of things Obama has done, but “disastrous”? What disasters have taken place? (Yes, certain of his decisions have been disastrous for Libya or Yemen, but Romney certainly would have been worse in that regard! But disastrous for the US?)

      • guest says:

        Not restricting my list to year 5 and later of Obama pretending to be a US President:

        Hidden deals with the UN to disarm Americans.

        Attempting to foment Marxist riot activities (Occupy Wall Street).

        Threatening people if they don’t buy something (Obamacare).

        Arming various government agencies (like the IRS) to protect him and them against 2nd Amendment defensive violent force.

        Using tax payer money to buy up massive amounts of ammunition to restrict the supply available for 2nd Amendment defensive violent force.

        Using the IRS to harass and stifle Tea Party activities.

        Deliberately telling gun sellers to sell to known criminals and deliberately allowing them to walk into Mexico so that they would be used in murders so that he could blame what relative freedom we have left to buy guns on the resulting gun violence in order to attempt to disarm Americans.

        • Tel says:

          Yeah, I forgot about turning the IRS into a political tool. That’s one heck of an anti-freedom precedent. That’s third world banana republic type stuff. Then all those hard drives fail right at the same time… well how about that, what’s the chance of that happening?

        • Tel says:

          Using tax payer money to buy up massive amounts of ammunition to restrict the supply available for 2nd Amendment defensive violent force.

          That wasn’t intended to reduce supply, although to some extent it may have done so.

          I bet London to a brick a good fraction of that US government purchase ended up in the Middle East. I remember at least one of the ammo purchase orders was questioned, and in response the name of the department on the purchase order changed. Now, no one in any government ever, ever fills in an order with the wrong name of the department on top… but there’s one (and only one) department that can legally purchase under another department’s name.

      • Jim says:

        Really? How about Obamacare? When did we EVER think that a requirement to buy health insurance would pass and not be considered tyranny?

        How about the plethora of examples of moving the office of the Presidency to that of a Monarch through the erosion of the separation of powers.

        Why is it that if it happens to Libya or Yemen it doesn’t need to be considered a disaster?

        How about the Obama administration 2011 Title 9 enforcement that Christina Hoff Summers makes a great case showing that it’s the catalyst for the PC/SJW (a.k.a Marxist) movement on campus – as if the totalitarian violent sentiment infesting a huge portion of the millennial generation isn’t going to have long term “disastrous” repercussions?

        How about turning the capital structure on it’s head in response to the financial crises though multiple bailouts.

        How about the massive expansion of the regulatory state which has had a measurable impact on private property rights and the empirically predictable, now measurable, impact on the economy.

        • Anonymous says:

          “Why is it that if it happens to Libya or Yemen it doesn’t need to be considered a disaster?”

          I said these WERE disasters, not that they don’t need to be considered one!

          • Jim says:

            You are correct. My apologies. I misread you as saying it only made a difference if it was disastrous for the US.

      • Major.Freedom says:

        Hitler was not a disaster then because it is possible that someone else could have been even worse.

        Callahan logic 101.

      • Tel says:

        What disasters have taken place? … disastrous for the US?

        I think the current student loan bubble is ready to become a disaster but hasn’t quite exploded yet. The US employment situation never recovered from 2008… not entirely a disaster but still not a great situation. Obamacare has had some unfortunate (totally predictable) side effects, such as higher insurance premiums, worse service, massive wastage… OK not disaster proportions but getting close. Trust in government is at an all time low… that’s probably a good thing in the long run, but bad because of all the scandals that got us where we are. If you are an American citizen and you own a gun you are supposedly some kind of evil doer, but if you are Daesh or a Mexican drug dealer then “Here! have some guns. No really, have plenty! You want ammo with that?”

        Also, extreme low interest rates for how many years now? As Peter Schiff points out, there has to be some mal-investment stacked up by now, so how can that possibly look good when it unwinds? The question is not whether there’s a problem, but more like how big the problem really is.

        Then there’s the executive power precedents: the ability to kill anyone, any time for reasons best known to himself. If you don’t like the idea of a President Trump then just think that President Bush and President Obama were the ones who established that principle of unlimited executive power. The ability to spy on anyone, without any particular reason. The ability to just stamp foot and demand a budget, open ended of course. Plenty of things for future Presidents to take advantage of.

  3. Sam Armstrong says:

    Why don’t libertarians understand that supporting trump will tear the Republican party apart, and there will be a realignment of authoritarians vs libertarians. Which would make us the other second party instead of this nonsensical alignment on anti-oppression vs anti-barbarism. Anti-tyranny is the way to go.

    • Jim says:

      This is a total pipe-dream … one that I’ve been saying for a while has a small chance of actually happening … so I’m voting Trump in the primary. But them I’m moving on the Cthulu in the main election because (like I mentioned before), why settle for the lesser evil.

  4. Levi Russell says:

    If we’re going to let the absolute worst thing a person has done determine who is the worst (and I can’t think of a better way to do it really… Stalin is worse than Hitler because he murdered more people. A murderer is worse than a thief, etc), then I see no reason to think that Trump is the worst. The other candidates are politicians. Two of them have voted for (as Senators) the killing of many, many people in *non* defensive wars.

    What precisely has Trump done that makes him worse than this? I see self-described libertarians all over Twitter fainting and weeping over how bad Trump is because of his personality or his language. Yeah, he talks a pretty sick, evil game. The others are actually complicit in acts of evil.

    • Gene Callahan says:

      Yes, Levi, apparently for some people, saying mean things about foreigners is much worse than killing them!

    • Andrew_FL says:

      Levi-Of course Trump has not, that we know of, been complicit in killing people. Do you think he wouldn’t be as president?

      I think he would be complicit with such as President. The distinction between will do versus have done is a thin one to hang one’s hat on judging moral superiority vs. inferiority.

      • Levi Russell says:

        Yes they all will. But just because he talks tough doesn’t mean he’ll actually be worse! He’s got a lot of “catching up” to do if he wants to be as despicably evil as Hillary.

        Are you telling me that you believe politicians when they tell you what they plan to do in office? Good grief!

        It’s not a thin distinction, it’s a recognition that we don’t have perfect information about the future but we darn sure know what happened in the past.

        • Andrew_FL says:

          Levi-My belief that Trump would be complicit in killing people when President, at least as much as Hillary Clinton will be as President, is not based on what Trump has said-“talking tough”-it’s based on my assessment of the sort of person he is, and based on the fact that, I am not aware of anyone who has been President in the last sixty or seventy years who has not been. So my belief is based on what has happened in the past.

          Do I believe politicians will do what they say they will do? Absolutely not. In fact one of my problems with Trump is I have no idea what he’s going to do. But violence is what governments do, and being the head of our local violence monopoly is Trump’s desire. What does that tell you?

          Ah you know Levi I think I’m gonna quit this because honestly I hate to argue with you for the same reason Goldberg hates arguing with his friends who’ve been podded by Trump. I am working on something I think you’ll like, assuming we’re still cool even though I’m more bearish on Trump than you are.

          • Tel says:

            What do you mean “at least as much” ?

            When you look at the chaos in Libya, there was no need for that, and strong evidence that the US (and Europe) assisted with arms shipments and stirring up trouble in that country. Would Trump do worse than that?

            In fact one of my problems with Trump is I have no idea what he’s going to do. But violence is what governments do, and being the head of our local violence monopoly is Trump’s desire. What does that tell you?

            Sure, that’s a problem with all candidates, and it always will be. The best you can hope for is someone who keeps the seat occupied and prevents someone worse getting in there.

            Preferences are ordinal, there’s no absolute “good” and “bad” on any sort of measurable scale, there’s only “better” or “worse” under the circumstances. From my perspective, either Hillary or Sanders would be worse than Trump. Hillary has already proven what she is like with Libya and Benghazi while Sanders honestly believes that socialism is magically gonna work this time, when it failed every other time (yes, it failed even in the Scandinavian countries).

          • Levi Russell says:

            Andrew_FL,

            I have no bad feelings toward anyone who is more pessimistic about Trump or any other pol than I am. I just honestly don’t understand the level of rage, finger-wagging, fainting, and weeping over Trump *relative to* the others.

            Looking forward to seeing what you’re working on!!

  5. Anonymous says:

    For all their faults Bush and Romney at least *acted* presidential. They are good people that generally spoke the truth as they understood it (even if it turned out to be wrong or misguided). Not to mention that in the general elections they were clearly more conservative than Democratic alternatives running. Don’t get me wrong, they aren’t shining bastions of unwavering conservative principle but we are comparing them to Trump here.

    On the other hand, you can’t trust Trump to look out a window and honestly tell you what color the sky is, or even to do it without insulting someone or something as part of his answer. He is a blubbering, manipulative blowhard who has two gifts that have carried him this far: he was born and stayed rich, and he has the uncanny ability to bold-faced lie to people both in person and on camera and get them to believe him. He also embodies many of the negative stereotypes that Republicans constantly have to bat down as rightly unfounded (racist, sexist, greedy capitalist, etc).

    Basically, while Bush and Romney both did things that were against conservative/libertarian principles, Trump is not only not conservative and will gleefully implement liberal polices on most issues, he is a terrible person to boot.

    • guest says:

      “For all their faults Bush and Romney at least *acted* presidential. They are good people that generally spoke the truth as they understood it (even if it turned out to be wrong or misguided).”

      Oh, good. I get to drop these knowledge bombs:

      Romney Obama the Same
      [www]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVvAoE6b4w4

      The Ultimate Mitt Romney Flip-Flop Collection
      [www]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x2W4GhSLlQ

  6. Chuck says:

    You have to admit our rulers put on a good show.

  7. Gene Callahan says:

    This has to be recognized as a cultural shudder: Trump appeals to PEOPLE IN TRAILER PARKS! You can bomb boatloads of foreigners and massively expand the federal government, but if you appeal to PEOPLE IN TRAILER PARKS, elite opinion has to write you off.

    • Craw says:

      This is the correct answer.

      Just read some of Goldberg ‘s own NR. About the communities that’ deserve to die ‘ for instance.

      • Andrew_FL says:

        You have not read Williamson’s article that has pissed you off so much.

        • Zack says:

          I get the feeling almost everyone who expresses outrage about that article didn’t actually read it.

    • Max says:

      Bill Clinton had copious of “trailer park” appeal, but he didn’t go full retard.

      Never go full retard.

    • Andrew_FL says:

      Whites cringe at the worst members of their race, other races have solidarity. Cultural cringe works, racial solidarity does not.

  8. guest says:

    Wondering if Gene Callahan has ever seen this quote:

    C.S. Lewis: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

  9. Major.Freedom says:

    Summer is not a libertarian. He is a left wing socialist. Quite a number of them call themselves libertarians because they are themselves as advocating for certain narrowly defined liberties that the more extreme left wing Socialists deny.

  10. Andrew_FL says:

    Bob-Gotta unpack this a bit:

    Goldberg is saying he would not be able to defend Trump as the GOP nominee. Goldberg is a conservative, not a libertarian so items 3 and 4 he would presumably be willing to defend, on George W. Bush. Should Sumner approve of that, as a libertarian? No. But it has no bearing on whether you can take Goldberg seriously, unless you just never take someone who isn’t libertarian on foreign policy seriously to begin with, in which case…okay, but why was it necessary to make a post like this is the ONE THING you can’t take him seriously on?

    But okay, put that aside. Surely, you will say, Goldberg should not have been able to defend George Bush for nationalizing banks or Medicare part D. And I’d agree. But that’s not what he said. What he said was he’s never been in a position where he couldn’t defend the Republican nominee, as in, in the election. This totally neutralizes the issue of nationalizing the banks. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that had not happened yet, in 2004. And second, you’re really saying, you can’t take some one seriously for defending someone who did Medicare part D, who refuses to defend an advocate of socialized medicine? Really? Especially when, as I recall, he was, in the context of 2000, 2004, defending the GOP nominee against advocates of socialized medicine?

    I mean I think it’s a little ridiculous to say “I can’t take conservatives seriously when they criticize Trump” when what you mean is “I can’t take conservatives seriously, period.”

  11. Adrian Gabriel says:

    I think this post shows how some people are getting stuck in the whole lesser of two evils paradigm. I’d rather turn off the tv when it comes to politics and do something else more productive. As an Ancap, I’d rather reference your article on a person’s vote not counting, and the pettiness of registering to vote in the first place. For those that do vote, even though I think that’s a waste of time and only encouraging the system we have in place, they might be better off taking Dr Paul’s advice:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/politics/ron-paul-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-2016/

  12. Reece says:

    George Bush was horrible. Trump is 100 times worse.

    Bush had clear limits. He didn’t advocate directly for war crimes like Trump has (when he said he would kill the family members of terrorists). He deported a lot of people, but it wasn’t even comparable to the devastation Trump would inflict with deportations. He ran as a “compassionate conservative”, not under a cult of personality.

    The ideas Trump is spreading is contributing to a massive racist movement. I’ve been in conservative groups on Facebook for a few years, and they’ve always been pretty bad. But the Trump groups go far beyond them. You can post things calling for dropping nuclear bombs on the middle east, deporting all Muslims, etc. and get lots of likes and support while getting little to no disagreement. Trump knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s not accidentally lying about black crime or Muslims’ supporting terrorism. He’s purposely building a bigoted authoritarian movement centered around himself, and if he wins, then this movement takes control of this country. I can’t imagine much of a worse possibility.

    I would consider voting for Clinton to stop Trump.

    • guest says:

      “The ideas Trump is spreading is contributing to a massive racist movement.”

      No they’re not; Deportations were never about racism for the *vast* majority of those that support deportations.

      You get a tiny group of racists that share the goal of deportations with the rest of Conservatives.

      Deportations are about keeping the American government from abandoning its goal of individual liberty to those who pretend to be citizens and commit voter fraud to make America more socialist.

      We say, why do you want to bring here what clearly destroyed the countries you came from. If you don’t like the freedoms Americans enjoy, go back to your hell-hole of a country you came from.

      That’s not racism. It’s American Exceptionalism the way actual Conservatives understand it – not this odd idea that America is better than everyone “because ‘Merica!”

      Where the hell did *that* come from.

      America is (was!) exceptional *because* it wasn’t a socialist hell-hole like most of the rest of the world.

      American Exceptionalism is what Ronald Reagan (who grew government in contradiction to his libertarian rhetoric, yes) was referring to when he said, in his famous speech “A Time for Choosing”, “America is the last stand on earth. If we lose liberty here, there’s no where else to go” (paraphrase).

      *That’s* American Exceptionalism. It doesn’t preclude other countries from being exceptional. But, at the time, yeah, pretty much no other country was as exceptional as America.

      Or, at least we thought we were free.

      But the point is that you don’t have to be a racist to favor deportations of Mexicans.

      Of course, it’s the wrong move because it’s a violation of individual liberty, to be sure.

      • Reece says:

        “No they’re not; Deportations were never about racism for the *vast* majority of those that support deportations.”
        (In reply to: “The ideas Trump is spreading is contributing to a massive racist movement.”)

        I agree deportations alone aren’t necessarily racist, although I disagree on the numbers. Note that in my post I mentioned other things, including “He’s not accidentally lying about black crime or Muslims’ supporting terrorism.” He has literally re-tweeted neo-Nazi propaganda about race, and a large percentage of the people he re-tweets are white nationalists. His comments on race are often extremely inflammatory.

        But, yes, Donald Trump’s deportation talk definitely contributes to the fact that he is a racist. Note that he only talks about Mexicans when he is talking about undocumented immigrants. Sure, Mexico is the most common country, but the other places add up to a significant percentage (China, Canada, Europe, Philippines, etc.). Has he ever mentioned the Europeans or Canadians “invading” the country? Of course not. It isn’t only a disproportionate talk of Mexican or Central/South American undocumented immigrants, it’s 100%. That’s a good sign of racism.

        “Deportations are about keeping the American government from abandoning its goal of individual liberty to those who pretend to be citizens and commit voter fraud to make America more socialist.”

        Yes, some people are ignorant of the facts and think that more undocumented immigrants means the country will become more socialist or there will be some other significant harm unrelated to their race, and haven’t thought through a rights argument. That’s why deportations alone don’t signify racism. But someone like Trump has almost certainly heard the research and numbers on things like this, and has no excuse for taking the position he does.

        “America is the last stand on earth. If we lose liberty here, there’s no where else to go” (Ronald Reagan)

        Well, there’s nowhere else to go for the vast majority of the world if the “American Exceptionalists” block off the country from people fleeing from their countries.

        • guest says:

          “It isn’t only a disproportionate talk of Mexican or Central/South American undocumented immigrants, it’s 100%. That’s a good sign of racism.”

          It *might* be, but not necessarily.

          Most of the talk about “taking back America” by foreigners is coming from Mexico’s direction.

          Do you hear anywhere near that kind of talk from people of the other countries you mention we get illegal aliens from (I prefer the term illegal aliens)?

          No. That’s why we don’t care as much if they come here. They actually assimilate better among free-er people.

          “Yes, some people are ignorant of the facts and think that more undocumented immigrants means the country will become more socialist …”

          Just to reiterate, it’s not illegal aliens, per se, but the socialist rhetoric coming from these people.

          We don’t care so much if other people come here, illegally, because they generally want to assimilate rather than use the government to steal other people’s money.

          The vast majority of people who favor deportations just do not see it as a race issue, per se.

          It’s the same with the profiling issue.

          We don’t hate colored people, we hate socialism. And most people of color who identify as members of a race-based community just happen to be socialists.

          For example, blacks who aren’t socialists are called “race traitors” by their own.

          You have to be socialist in order to *be* Mexican, Black, etc.

          Asians aren’t “white” as we’re supposed to understand it, but these other groups don’t like them because they’re not, generally, socialists.

          So, since racial identity entails adherence to socialist ideals, it’s easy to mistake hatred of socialism for hatred of race.

          There is no problem with racism in America. This is just a lie pushed by the Left.

          • Reece says:

            “Most of the talk about “taking back America” by foreigners is coming from Mexico’s direction.”

            No, that is definitely wrong. I did a search for “taking back America” and “take back America”. Over all, it was a mixture of conservative and liberal stuff. The only things with multiple links in the first few pages were a liberal book with the phrase in it (in challenge to George W Bush) and a large number of links with Trump supporters using the phrase. Thus the most common use for liberals seemed to be opposing the state, and the most common use for conservatives seemed to be for expanding the state. At no point did I find use by Mexicans. When I typed “Mexican” to the end in an attempt to find the phrase used in this way, I still didn’t find it; instead I mainly found people asking if Mexicans were taking back America, anti-immigration people accusing Mexicans of having this goal, and anti-immigration people having this goal themselves.

            So it appears the opposite is the case. If you want less people trying to “take back America”, we should probably let more Hispanics and black people in, and less white people.

            “No. That’s why we don’t care as much if [people of the other countries you mention] come here. They actually assimilate better among free-er people.”

            This is making policy on racial groupings, which is exactly what I’m talking about. Opposing letting black people in because the policy maker thinks that they tend to be more socialist is racist. If they want to give them a quiz to see their economic beliefs, and it happens to end up that black people are less likely to get in, then that isn’t necessarily racist. But making specific rules or complaints based on race is.

            “It’s the same with the profiling issue.

            We don’t hate colored people, we hate socialism. And most people of color who identify as members of a race-based community just happen to be socialists.

            For example, blacks who aren’t socialists are called “race traitors” by their own.

            You have to be socialist in order to *be* Mexican, Black, etc.”

            This is both not okay and completely false. How can you possibly think that saying things like “blacks who aren’t socialists are called “race traitors” by their own” is an okay thing to do? Or “You have to be socialist in order to *be* Mexican, Black, etc.”? Most liberals are favorable of “socialism” in polls, but they’re thinking of it as “social democracy” not “socialism” in the real sense of the word (they don’t support public ownership of the means of production). And there are plenty of black people who oppose it anyway.

            And, like I said before, if conservatives want to support some political test to let people in, fine. That is still discriminatory and horrible, but it isn’t necessarily racist. But that isn’t what they support, and it isn’t what they’re focusing on. Canadians, Europeans, etc. tend to be more liberal too, but there are no complaints about them.

            “There is no problem with racism in America. This is just a lie pushed by the Left.”

            This is reality pushed by everyone who has actually researched the matter. Black people are treated horribly by the criminal justice system, for example (black people tend to get longer sentences for the same crime, for example). And there are a huge number of white nationalists and other white supremacists, including in the libertarian community, and it isn’t okay. When you have people like Chris Cantwell, Gary North, etc. treated as allies in the libertarian community, there is clearly a problem.

            And racism is more than just specific people being racist. It’s also the system of property that we have now, which partially explains why black people tend to be more liberal. Black people were slaves in this country for hundreds of years, and when they finally were freed, their rightful property was overwhelmingly kept by other people. They have the right to reparations from those that continue to hold their property.

            Also, it’s worth noting that the left is more libertarian than the right, and black people on average probably tend to be more libertarian than white people. For example, black people were against the war in Iraq by about 70% to 30%, while liberals (total) were only opposed by about 55% to 45%, and white people supported it by about 80% to 20%. This was one of the most disastrous policy decisions in the modern United States, and white people were overwhelmingly for it, and black people were overwhelmingly against it.

            • guest says:

              “No, that is definitely wrong. I did a search for “taking back America” and “take back America”. Over all, it was a mixture of conservative and liberal stuff.”

              Hey, that’s great.

              It wasn’t a phrase to look up, but an idea.

              .. “by foreigners”

              … as in: “Most of the talk about “taking back America” by foreigners is coming from Mexico’s direction.”

              Think “La Raza” and such.

              Hint: They may not use the exact phrase “take back America”.

              “This is making policy on racial groupings, which is exactly what I’m talking about.”

              No, this is recognizing the race-based identities that these people, themselves, self-identify as.

              … And then complain when others identify them by their chosen racial identity.

              “Most liberals are favorable of “socialism” in polls, but they’re thinking of it as “social democracy” not “socialism” in the real sense of the word (they don’t support public ownership of the means of production).”

              Except that 1) social democracy *is* socialism, and 2) you can’t have the kind of “soft” socialism you’re talking about increasing amounts of “public ownership” of the means of production.

              And 3) Maxine Waters:

              Maxine Waters (D) Slip of the Tongue Reveals True Intentions (Socialism for America)
              [www]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3I-PVVowFY

              Also, Fascism – regulating companies for some collective end – is just another form of socialism. The government “allows” certain individuals to run companies within certain parameters – which means those individuals don’t really run the companies.

              It’s socialism in the guise of capitalism.

              “And, like I said before, if conservatives want to support some political test to let people in, fine. That is still discriminatory and horrible, but it isn’t necessarily racist.”

              As you say, discrimination is not necessarily racist.

              But even if it was, it would be well within the rights of the so-called “owners” of America – citizens – to discriminate based on race.

              Because that’s what ownership means: having the right to control who does or does not get to be on your property.

              But, as I said, there’s no such thing as public ownership, and therefore deportations violate the individual rights of Mexicans, or whoever, to make trade agreements with other, American, individuals.

              ” Black people are treated horribly by the criminal justice system, for example (black people tend to get longer sentences for the same crime, for example).”

              This Critical Race Theory nonsense obscures the fact that Blacks do worse in America *because* of their own socialism.

              For example, they support the minimum wage which, at one time, was openly used against black labor to price them out of the market.

              I highly recommend this short series of videos by Walter Williams:

              Walter Williams: Good Intentions
              [www]https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8F6669EBA4AD450E

              Blacks destroy themselves, economically, then cannot make money without robbing people.

              *That’s* why the criminal justice system “treats them so bad”.

              It’s because they blame whites for the problems they caused themselves, and then attack people who do them no harm.

              “Black people were slaves in this country for hundreds of years, and when they finally were freed, their rightful property was overwhelmingly kept by other people. They have the right to reparations from those that continue to hold their property.”

              If you weren’t alive when the property was stolen, it doesn’t belong to you when you were born.

              You aren’t born owning anything. Nobody is.

              And whites, today, didn’t steal from anyone 100 years ago, so they don’t owe anyone anything.

              The victims are dead, so there’s no one to make reparations to, and the criminals are dead, so there’s no one from whom reparations may rightfully be taken.

              “For example, black people were against the war in Iraq by about 70% to 30%, while liberals (total) were only opposed by about 55% to 45%, and white people supported it by about 80% to 20%. This was one of the most disastrous policy decisions in the modern United States, and white people were overwhelmingly for it, and black people were overwhelmingly against it.”

              I was one of those who supported the Iraq war, at the time, and it wasn’t because I was a racist.

              Also, people who tended to oppose the war, if they weren’t libertarians, opposed it because they saw it as a criminal act of capitalism.

              The Left sees all Republican wars as “wars for oil” or “wars for profit”. In other words, “capitalism makes people go to war for other countries’ oil”.

              *That’s* why the Left opposed Bush’s wars.

              Here’s the Left, now:

              Obama Gets a Blank Check for Endless War
              [www]http://reason.com/archives/2011/08/08/obama-gets-a-blank-check-for-e

              • Andrew_FL says:

                guest-It doesn’t undermine your point (another great post btw) but:

                “You aren’t born owning anything. Nobody is.”

                Here, I have to quibble, that one certainly owns one’s body at birth-if not before, but let’s not go there.

              • guest says:

                I’m going to start calling you The Answer …

              • guest says:

                😛

              • Andrew_FL says:

                “The world spins mad. The people are so intoxicated by luxury they have forgotten everything that makes us more than house pets. Reason. Truth. Justice. Freedom. The human spirit is a shattered pane of glass—wrapped in soft velvet and soaked in sugary poison. Evil has seduced mankind. And mankind has shown all the chastity of a three-dollar whore. Yet I will not yield. I will not bend. I will not accept the corrupt new way of things. Nor will I be martyred. I will gather evidence—document every foul lie. I will forge my manifesto. My challenge to every free mind that may find it. Like a note in the bottle. Cast into the ocean. It will be typed. It must be typed. Computers can’t be trusted. They’re all tied in now, connected to the power of the tyrants. Once your thoughts are committed to disk, the tyrants have them. The Abyss stared back. The mind of man must be reclaimed—if not by this generation or by the next, then some day. Some decade. It is not in my power to effect the change. I haven’t the might. I am not the answer.

                I am only The Question.

              • guest says:

                Did you just make me read part of a comic book?

                A graphic-less one, no less?

                I feel violated.

                Like Silk Specter.

              • Andrew_FL says:

                Well, I said it. And then you read it. There wasn’t really any force involved. ;D

Leave a Reply to Anonymous

Cancel Reply