Friday morning links

Touche. Funny. I guess I am stuck with The Donald, for better or worse. Just wish he would read the Constitution and some other things, including Maggie's Farm website.

Noonan: Trump Was a Spark, Not the Fire - The establishments, both media and conservative, failed to anticipate how they’d be consumed:

The Democratic base has become more liberal—we all know this part—but in a way the Republican base has, too. Or rather it is certainly busy updating what conservative means. The past few months, in state after state, one thing kept jumping out at me in primary exit polls. Democrats consistently characterize themselves as more liberal than in 2008, a big liberal year. This week in Indiana, 68% of Democratic voters called themselves liberal or very liberal. In 2008 that number was 39%. That’s a huge increase.

Very good points, but the Repub party has rarely been thoroughly Conservative in ideology

Can Trump Beat Hillary? Why the presumptive Republican presidential nominee may defy the conventional wisdom once again.

The “passions” we see seething through a Trump rally are the anger at elites of both parties who for years now have talked down to the people, dismissed their legitimate concerns, and sneered at their ignorance, even as they pander to privileged minorities or appease the Democrats. They see criticism of Trump, whether intended or not, as criticism of themselves, yet another patronizing dismissal of their grievances. The backlash against political correctness that Trump has brilliantly exploited is the obvious focus of this anger at politicians who are supposed to be on their side, but who always find excuses to cede the high ground to the other side. Why else would the Senate confirm Loretta Lynch as Attorney General, especially after she told the Judiciary Committee that she viewed Obama’s unconstitutional amnesties as “legal”? Was it because she was eminently qualified, or because she is a black woman?

Some will dispute these assertions as misleading or false, but whether they are true or not is irrelevant. Politics is about perception. How else did a cipher like Barack Obama get elected twice? In 2008 he was perceived to be a racial healer, the smartest president ever, a “no red state, no blue state” unifier, and a brilliant orator. None of these perceptions turned out to be remotely true. The second time it was partly because 81% of voters perceived him to “care about people like me,” while only 18% felt the same about Mitt Romney, one of the most fundamentally decent and kind men ever to run for president. Trump seems to get that perceptions and passions come first, and policy can be figured out later. To a greater or lesser degree, this has pretty much been true in all presidential elections. Trump has simply discarded the decorum that camouflages the truth about political sausage-making.

Britain faces migrant chaos: New ´summer of discontent´ as thousands plot to storm border

EU Plans $290,000 Per Person Fine on Countries Refusing “Fair Share” of Refugees; Case For Brexit Crystallized

The Empire has been overreaching since it began. Rebellion will occur.

License To Steal: Italy’s Highest Court Rules “Theft Not A Crime If Hungry”

Most people feel food urges two or three times daily. Let's hope they do not apply this to sexual urges too.

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:21 | Comments (18) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: May 08, 09:43

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

The Left's Plan for 2016
Heh. It is to laugh. Let me guess the myopic and out of touch cocooned, snobs are going to trot out all their old worn out tropes: fascist, misogynist, racist...... Doesn't this cover just about anyone who doesn't buy into the fantastical utopia of the Mandarin class, including Centrists, Indies, Rhinos.
Why? There is an astonishing lack of imagination and an even more profound lack of empathy for regular everyday folks coupled with a lack of self awareness. It's like they never heard the fable of "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf".
What is even more mind boggling, is that they are supposed to have their fingers on the pulse of America; it is their profession. Even, I, simple soul that I am, realized that something different was afoot in January when Trump drew a substantial crowd in Lowell, MA, of all places.

#1 Exasperated on 2016-05-06 08:03 (Reply)

It is not as much about Trump, as it is about the widespread dissatisfaction that crosses almost all demographic lines, and the utter failure to address and acknowledge what appears to be a bleak future for many.

#1.1 Exasperated on 2016-05-06 08:11 (Reply)

I read that "demonize Trump story" yesterday. My first reaction was "Geez, like they have been nice to him so far?" And then I thought "Heck, nothing has slowed him, much less stopped him so far, so do your worst. Most of us don't listen to anything said by the Media Elite anyway."

As I have said before, I don't like Trump's methods. I like that he is shaking up the process, though. I don't fear at all that he will turn into Hitler. Hitler played on fears that Europe had held for 1000+ years about Jewish conspiracies. There were pograms all over Europe long before Hitler was born. America has never condoned the murder peaceful immigrants. I know you are thinking "what about Japanese internment in WWII?" Different thing. No murder and serious guilt afterward. If Trump even tries to take us in that direction it won't fly. You can't hide a place like Auschwitz in the internet era.

My worry about the Trump movement is that it marks an end to serious politics. I worry that in the future we won't have politicians debating issues like we had before. Instead it will be blowhard celebrities insulting each other on camera. If Trump wins the election this November, I foresee a Kanye West v Trump contest in 2020.

#2 Dangerous Dean on 2016-05-06 10:35 (Reply)

Pray tell, Dangerous Dean, when oh when has politics been serious? Do you remember Sinatra stomping the trail for Kennedy and his family's endless shenanigans? Or Johnson inviting his minions into the "john" to discuss civil rights policy, otherwise known by a racial slur? Or the tapes of Nixon swearing about every pol that crossed his path? Clinton and spouse's antics are beyond description. I could go on, but I'm really tired of The O jumping and jiving to every Hollywood celeb with nasty lyrics to share…and in between golf games that would put Ike's record to shame or pollution-distributing forays to Hawaii for an ice cone with Michelle's celebrity friends.

Trump has attracted attention just because he HAS been specific, and most of his platform it about enacting laws that are already on the books. Read his website, don't listen to the MSM or the Snowflake politicians who don't want their hedge funds taxed. Our pols have simply chosen to ignore what THEY don't want or like, the citizens be damned.

Who knows if Trump will make all the changes necessary to put America back on track. But he sure knows what ticks off the populace about the present circumstances, and has made it through many rainy days and Mondays to secure the voters' confidence.

#2.1 jma on 2016-05-06 11:00 (Reply)

Valid points. Our pols have generally been selfish, sleazy and holier than thou.

But my point is that if it was bad before, I fear that post-Trump it will get even worse and more amateurish. I want to believe that Americans will have the common sense to resist the pull of celebrity, but fear that vapid celebrities will make it even worse than what we've seen in the last 50 years.
I want to be wrong.

#2.1.1 Dangerous Dean on 2016-05-06 12:09 (Reply)

Celebrity got Trump name recognition, nothing more. It did not win the primary for him. His policies, his presentation directly to the voter in his own words, his willingness to stand strong against the press, the left and even his own party won him the primary.

The future of politics is not celebrity. The future of politics is going to be plain-speaking, truth-telling and America first for a long, long time.

#2.1.1.1 MissT on 2016-05-06 15:14 (Reply)

Nothing more? I think you are believing things you wish were true. His policies shift week-to-week. He is blunt, which people find refreshing, but then says something different next month.

He is full throated America-first. Even I love that, and I think Trump is a buffoon. It's nice to hear someone shout it from the rooftops, not caring who doesn't like it. It's not enough. His campaign is based on feelings of what people think he is. They are going to be crushed as the reality hits them. Nice people, earnest patriots, salt of the earth. Headed off the cliff.

#2.1.1.1.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-05-07 17:01 (Reply)

Some cleaned up quotes from another blog:

Anglelyne said...

I dunno. Western Europe has much "better" politicians, in terms of "professional" presentation, public-speaking skill, and keeping up a pretense of "substance" ("being the adult in the room" ha ha ha) but they're screwing up their countries even worse and faster than our clown club is managing to screw up ours.

traditionalguy said..
All Trump does is show what reality looks like. That is what embarrasses us.

#2.1.1.2 Exasperated on 2016-05-06 17:08 (Reply)

"I know you are thinking "what about Japanese internment in WWII?" Different thing. No murder and serious guilt afterward. If Trump even tries to take us in that direction it won't fly. You can't hide a place like Auschwitz in the internet era."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The internment of Japanese and Japanese-Americans in WWII is something that I don't think our government had any real choice on. You had an easily discernible portion of the population that was directly identifiable with the enemy. I think if you had not removed them and put them in relocation camps the situation could have been worse in terms of how they were treated by other Americans. I do think it was as much for their own protection as it was because they were perceived as a threat. And of course it could not be known at the time whether they were loyal or not. We know that now through 20-20 hindsight. It may have been a harsh situation, but as far as I know they were never intentionally mistreated in the camps.

The loss of their property was another matter. Some of that was attempted to be corrected by Congress in the 1980s in terms of compensation but obviously it wasn't sufficient to undo the harm suffered.

There actually were plans in process to intern Italians and Italian-Americans on the West Coast, and their movements were restricted and a number lost their businesses and homes because they were forced to relocate (e.g, Joe DiMaggio's family had their fishing boat and business confiscated--the fear was that Italian-American fishing boats would be used to help German submarines target shore areas in California). But obviously that was a much larger and more difficult population to identify and make a decision about. Also, it was realized that the support of Italian-Americans was needed when the decision was made to invade Italy, and so the internment plans were scrapped. See, e.g., http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/23/local/la-me-italians-20100823

#2.2 Jim on 2016-05-06 14:24 (Reply)

Actually they had already started interning Italian Americans and I know one camp was in Montana. When compensation was legislated it was a Japanese American senator that denied compensation to anyone other than Japanese. And yes, he was one of those non-discrimination diverse democrats.

#2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2016-05-07 16:47 (Reply)

I'm pretty tired of hearing how Trump doesn't know enough about this or that. That is what advisors and your cabinet are for. Does any potential candidate know everything about the economy, foreign policy, trade, debt, etc.? It is pretty much impossible for any candidate to have all of this knowledge without actually having been the President, and even then, I believe almost all presidents are relying on their team of people to give them inside details, options and advice.

Let's say this: what does Hillary know about how to make jobs? about construction projects? about business taxes?

Very little. But yet no one hammers her on this? These are areas of expertise for Trump. I also think he is not stupid. He graduated from one of the best business schools in the U.S.

If we thought Bush was smart enough to be president and knew enough, then we must accept that Trump is also smart enough. There is no excuse for disqualifying someone because they 'don't have the experience.'

It should always be about judgment and capability to surround yourself with the right people. I think Trump, with his business successes, has the judgment. I also think we will see that he will surround himself with the right people.

If Trump gets just a few things right: immigration, business taxes, trade - he will be successful. These few areas impact our country on so many levels.

I would also agree with jma...READ HIS BOOKS! All of his ideas and policy plans are laid out with extensive notes and citations. It amazes me how few people even bother to read them, but yet feel they can criticize him for 'having no detailed policies.' It's rather maddening.

#3 MissT on 2016-05-06 11:30 (Reply)

With Trump WYSIWYG. That sets him apart from all modern politicians, with the possible exception of Harry Truman.

#4 BillH on 2016-05-06 13:31 (Reply)

Truman good comparison. A haberdasher by trade.

Give 'em hell Harry.

#4.1 Bird Dog on 2016-05-06 13:47 (Reply)

I had a prof who told his classes that he thought HST was the best president we'd had (as of ~'62). I thought he was nuts. Late concluded he had a good point.

#4.1.1 Sam L. on 2016-05-07 15:47 (Reply)

Re: Widespread Mental Illness and bathrooms

Megan Fox correctly points out that those opposed North Carolina's HB2 bill is not about transgender people but those who might pretend to be a transgender.

What wasn't said is that it may not be the real issue. After all, nobody's worried about a woman who wants to be a man going into the men's bathroom. She would spend most of her time in a stall and most men would be able to take care of themselves against her.

There much more dangerous situations that need to be ignored. There is no recourse for women and girls in changing rooms, locker rooms, etc. should a man who is pretending to be a woman show up. He would have a perfect right to be thee so even if they called the police, there would be nothing they could do if the Obama's DOJ has its way.

It's even worse than that. For example, I volunteered at a women's drug rehab charity. Presumably, they would have to be open to allowing men who are pretending to be women.

We're all being required to embrace another's emotional problem as normal and desirable.

#5 mudbug on 2016-05-06 14:35 (Reply)

I swear my Facebook feed is 50% cute little provocative posters about how dumb it is to oppose the new bathroom initiative. I have to wade past them to get pictures of the great-nephews and the cat videos I really want to look at.

#6 Texan99 on 2016-05-06 20:11 (Reply)

Modern politics aren't about policy or philosophy, it's about marketing. Who can best package and sell and sell a product, it isn't about the product, its about the packaging and the sales pitch. Trump is a master salesman, he will mop the floor with Hillary.

He will also make fools of most of his followers that think he is a Republican second coming of Reagan, but you can't have everything.

#7 B Moe on 2016-05-07 15:41 (Reply)

"Theft not a crime if hungry"

Clearly a court should treat a theft of food by a hungry person different than a theft of almost anything for simple personal gain. But it would still be a crime. I think the courts have lost their place/purpose in life and are now trying to be something they aren't and shouldn't be. Lower courts "should" simply assure that the law is followed correctly and the Supreme Court should simply assure that the law is constitutional. Neither courts should make law or change the law.

To decide that stealing food if hungry is not a criminal act would be like a referee in basketball deciding that double dribbling is OK if you are clumsy/inept.

#8 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-05-07 17:54 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, May 6. 2016

Friday morning links