tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post3818108920374914274..comments2024-03-28T21:56:51.675-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Democrats winning from hatred of GOP business as usualagnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-67671196342863253442017-12-16T21:28:09.991-05:002017-12-16T21:28:09.991-05:00I can't help but notice the entitlements Repub...I can't help but notice the entitlements Republicans are most thirsty to cut are always Social Security and Medicare. They want to cut programs many older people are dependent on and often paid into for decades. They won't dare cut programs for unwed mothers and their offspring. They only want to hurt older people who ironically are some of their most loyal voters. These cuts are especially insidious considering there is much discrimination in the workforce against hiring older workers. Many seniors will have difficulty surviving if establishment Republicans find a way to get these cuts through.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373560420508884302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-49880816626037296882017-12-16T20:55:03.400-05:002017-12-16T20:55:03.400-05:00Populist Dems under assault by libtards ought to r...Populist Dems under assault by libtards ought to reach out to Trump voters for help during their primaries -- "I'm under attack by the feminazis, come out and take a stand against the pussy hat brigade!"<br /><br />Let's see if the Bernie people want our help...agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-44156078337664969442017-12-16T19:25:32.347-05:002017-12-16T19:25:32.347-05:00https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/16/dan-lipi...https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/16/dan-lipinski-conservative-democrat-election-299572<br /><br />If you think the Dems are out of the woods yet.....<br /><br />Lipinski is from the Eastern Midwest, is a white male Boomer, and he's pro-life. He also voted against Obamacare and the TPP, while he supported Bernie in '16. I suspect the feminazis and the last factor are what's driving the Left establishment's jihad against Lipiniski (a lot of "Left" PACs are pooling resources to get him replaced).<br /><br />Note that one of his critics claims that Lipinski doesn't have the correct "values" (grrr) that his nominally "progressive" district/region supposedly demands. If these zealots won't heed the populist call and stop the elitist moralizing, were just gonna be pushed closer and closer to the edge.....Then we might fall off and whatever is left of a decent functioning society will crash and burn.Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-10160902715522014902017-12-16T14:16:46.125-05:002017-12-16T14:16:46.125-05:00If you hated Ryan, wait till you see his replaceme...If you hated Ryan, wait till you see his replacement. (If you hated Boehner, wait till you see his replacement).<br /><br />To make major changes to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid they would need 60 votes in the Senate, which is not happening.<br /><br />So either McConnell decides to lower the threshold to 51 votes, in order to gut the social safety net, or they just run out the clock to sideline the populist / nationalist agenda completely, while at least trying to shift the Overton Window on gutting the social safety net and hoping to get it done later.<br /><br />I suspect the latter.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-2821851557767226962017-12-16T12:25:15.255-05:002017-12-16T12:25:15.255-05:00I think if you want an indicator of how utterly cl...I think if you want an indicator of how utterly clueless and out of touch the GOP is, it's been reported that Paul Ryan's retiring after the 2018 midterms (hurray!) but is going to make his final year all about... entitlement reforms (boo!). One last little middle finger before riding off into the sunset with his eye on a nice, cushy lobbyist and/or think tank gig.<br /><br />What an utterly useless cretin.Narshenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-65565983631062813602017-12-16T09:41:53.664-05:002017-12-16T09:41:53.664-05:00Off-topic:
WTF, LOL, BFD.........
LUKE IS KILLE...Off-topic:<br />WTF, LOL, BFD.........<br /><br /><br /><br />LUKE IS KILLED IN THE LATEST DISNEY CORPORATE PRODUCT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />Ahem. Good, now there's one less (big) reason for anyone to care about the new SW products. What X-er is going to care about the future movies? Nobody has affection for any of the new characters, has felt invested in them or quotes them. Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-32368458236524895292017-12-15T19:08:55.447-05:002017-12-15T19:08:55.447-05:00"All of the difference is due to later genera..."All of the difference is due to later generations balking at joining the Republican side, as Democrats are similar across generations and decades.<br /><br />Medium-to-long term, that means the death of the GOP as a party, not just its current version, and its replacement by a new 2nd party that is more populist and nationalist."<br /><br />Right, the party of Patrick Bateman and Ned Flanders went out of it's way to alienate more and more people as the 80's and 90's (and subsequent decades) went on. As the party has refused to change it's tune, it's become archaic and aggravating to people born over the last 40-45 years who feel as though they were totally gypped by Silents and Boomers.<br /><br />While outright sociopathy seems to have motivated a lot of the die hard Republicans born in the 30's-50's, I get the hunch that 60's births are more likely to be well-meaning Ayn Rand idolators who really think that the most beneficial outcome to everything is achieved by keepin the gubmint out of everything. Age of first marriage has been rising since the 90's; AFF/middle class aspirations have been out of reach for many people born since the early 70's. 60's births got to have a go at the last remnants of mid-century opportunity that persisted into the 80's, and they're self-servingly passing judgement on "Millennials" (who actually share a lot of traits with mid-late X-ers). Lefty Boomers/early X-ers are more sympathetic to younger generations, while so many late Boomer/early X-er righties tell young(ish) people to keep calm and pretend that it's still 1985.<br /><br />Neil Howe says that 1972-'73 is the dividing line between political values in X-ers, with many 1960's-'72 births being allied to the GOP and those born after '72 being much more Democrat or Independent. That squares with the idea that around 1990, elites started to really pour oil down the ladder of opportunity. Those born after 1972 just don't have anything to feel grateful for, and they certainly aren't going to pine after an era (the 80's and 90's) that did nothing for them economically; nor are they going to have any love lost for the past GOP leadership, or the now ascendant class of late Boomer/early X-er Republicans..Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-77012220303347799222017-12-15T17:19:03.992-05:002017-12-15T17:19:03.992-05:00It looks so far like the lion's share of elite...It looks so far like the lion's share of elites cannot be persuaded to give more of the public what they want. You'd think that after 40+ years of being asleep on the job that they might wake up, but nope. I know it's true for conservative elites, and I'm waiting until 2020 to render a verdict on the Left (another properly complected DLC flunky like Booker or Harris, or a flinty populist?) If the Dems keep running older white guys, regardless of their success, at what point do the cultural Marxists storm the DNC castle and demand greater representation, not unlike the insistence that black actors have to be nominated at the Oscars?Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-89332263895286928122017-12-15T17:18:50.531-05:002017-12-15T17:18:50.531-05:00"Not sure, but it seems populist movements ha..."Not sure, but it seems populist movements happen with the angsty cycle(peak every 15 years). The populist revolt in the early 90s you mentioned, the WTO protests in the early 2000s, the Trump/Sanders campaigns in 2015."<br /><br />Another cyclical aspect here is:<br /><br />Who is demanding something?<br /><br />Why are they demanding it?<br /><br />How do elites respond to it?<br /><br />In the late 60's/early 70's, mid-upper class people demanded action on foreign policy (get out of Vietnam) and the environment (No more lakes on fire), for good reason. Meanwhile, white proles were furious about the Civil Rights movement's over-reach, with blacks rioting and committing much more crime. How did elites respond? LBJ tacitly admitted his loss of popular goodwill by opting not to run, and there wasn't some kind of corrupt strong interest group around to mourn his departure or vainly try to prop up a political zombie. Nixon then won in '68, and Nixon wound down Vietnam, created the EPA, and promised "Law and Order" to reassure the broad masses of non-hippie white Americans that he wasn't going to take the kind of shit that well meaning but cluelessly sentimental liberals put up with. The populace was wholesome (all things considered), and elites were listening to us.<br /><br />Early 90's? Working class and middle-middle class people were fed up with Reaganomics and Wall Street excess. Elites and near elites were too busy admiring their fortunes to give a damn. Bush tried to rouse the country's spirit with a short and sweet (or so it seemed....) foreigner ass-kicking, which basically worked for a while, but it ultimately wasn't enough to distract people from their hostility toward's the GOP's economic ideas. Interestingly, Bill Clinton never really convinced anyone that he had much better ideas, thus why Perot (who ran on an early version of Trumpism) did so well while Clinton failed to win the popular vote. The GOP was toxic by the early 90's, and Bush got shown the door early. Elites commanded Clinton to accellerate neo-liberal economics, though the Dems at this time also deflated the Pentagon bubble to a degree and didn't push supply side crap as much as the GOP would've done. Meanwhile, Clinton greatly reformed welfare which was met with approval from many people. By the mid-90's, Clinton had a decent public image and was widely credited with fiscal responsibility (though in reality his cuts to financial regulations and lack of protectionism would wreak a lot of damage that wouldn't be clear until after he left office. The idiot GOP relentlessly attacked Clinton's smarmy quality and his moral failings, rather than for being America's first president to fully commit to globalism.<br /><br />The 2000's? People under 35 first attacked neo-liberal corporate crap in the early 2000's, but this only ever was a niche Lefty activist thing, which indicates the civic apathy of much of the American population by this point. In the late 60's, broad swathes of people had well-reasoned opposition to major issues (war excess, pollution, and civil disorder). Later 2000's opposition to military excess was more promising, with some nice sized marches, some elite celebrities lending support, and some iconic figures to emerge (like Cindy Sheehan). But by the 2000's, elites and a good chunk of near-elites believed it was America's responsibility to "build democracies" in foreign lands while neglecting American's own infrastructure. So this anti-war movement never gained any real traction, to the point that even Obama's regime didn't acknowledge elite incompetence by withdrawing from various theaters. With military excess and financial malfeasance brewing, Bush became the most hated president since LBJ. But due to America's withered civic culture, and elite arrogance, the culture of his presidency lived on in subsequent administrations.Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-18687330332858838172017-12-15T15:34:29.048-05:002017-12-15T15:34:29.048-05:00"the populist Bernie side would have to compl..."the populist Bernie side would have to completely take over the party with no identity politics"<br /><br />So why don't the Trump supporters crash the Democrat party, and serve as the rowdy cavalry for the Bernie revolution? We already blew up the Republican status quo -- time to blow it up on the Democrats' side, too.<br /><br />Except they will actually respond to demands, rather than us just razing their headquarters to the ground because they refuse to surrender it to our hostile takeover.<br /><br />It's not as though the Trump voters don't already include a decent chunk of Bernie supporters. Over 5% of all Trump voters in the general were Bernie voters in the primary -- that's 3 MILLION people who voted Bernie then Trump. And probably concentrated in the states that Trump flipped for the win.<br /><br />Even if you're still planning to vote R, you should at least vote in the D primary to give the Bernie people the edge to shove out the identity politics / Wall Street alliance in their elite wing. "What the hell do you have to lose?" Lord knows there won't be much worth voting for on the Republican side, with no Trumpians warming up in the bullpen.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-75842316464656430252017-12-15T15:24:08.526-05:002017-12-15T15:24:08.526-05:00There are still plenty of Hill shills, especially ...There are still plenty of Hill shills, especially in the media, who are trying to crow about how black women saved Alabama. Like I said, that would be an obstacle to winning more elections -- drawing the wrong conclusions about why you won.<br /><br />It remains to be seen how the Bernie people will interpret the win, though. They're the ones steering the party in a different direction, so it's not important what the clueless media pundits are saying.<br /><br />Even if they wrongly attribute the win to black women, rather than depressed turnout among whites who are alienated from the GOP, that doesn't mean the Bernie people would attribute the win to identity politics issues.<br /><br />Doug Jones' main policy focus was healthcare for children of poor parents, which naturally affects black women more than other groups. But that's just a case of an apparent racial issue reducing to a class issue -- not a racial issue per se, like check your white privilege, diversity is our strength, blacks are morally superior, etc.<br /><br />It would only be an identity politics issue if they said that poor white single mothers are getting over-fed by government programs, while the racist system is depriving poor black single mothers of the same assistance.<br /><br />As it was actually argued, it was that the sociopathic Republicans want to take away a piece of the social safety net, and black women resonate with that message more because they're more likely to be relying on the social safety net for their kids' well-being.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-88516708355409261492017-12-15T14:00:29.510-05:002017-12-15T14:00:29.510-05:00I am so passionately against the tax plan for a wh...I am so passionately against the tax plan for a whole host of reasons that I would consider voting Democrat for the first time in my life. Yet for me to do so the populist Bernie side would have to completely take over the party with no identity politics. It is also important to me that Democrats steer clear of any pro-Muslim rhetoric. In the end it wouldn't surprise me I throw away my vote on some fringe third party candidate that alligns with my views closer than either Rs or Ds.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373560420508884302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-87091326384972783762017-12-15T07:53:27.415-05:002017-12-15T07:53:27.415-05:00Did you miss the outpouring of "BLACK WOMEN S...Did you miss the outpouring of "BLACK WOMEN SAVED AMERICA" after the Alabama election? <br /><br />Trump would be better off pushing some Bernie-lite issues than us voting for Democrats. I remember 2006, they gave all that up to yell at whitey, and they won't ever stop. <br /><br />We need to be sowing dissent in their ranks, we need to be poking the identity politics bear. Franken Steynnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-12130095101939182882017-12-15T02:27:44.166-05:002017-12-15T02:27:44.166-05:00Plus that first major Bernie ad was the whitest th...Plus that first major Bernie ad was the whitest thing we'd ever seen:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nwRiuh1Cug<br /><br />It was not self-consciously white, like if the Alt-Right had done it. The Bernie people are blissfully unaware of their uber-whiteness, because they're from New England or the Great Lakes and aren't surrounded by minorities. Identity politics as opposed to class would never strike them as an important political matter.<br /><br />And apropos of the Simon & Garfunkel lyrics, Saginaw voted for Trump -- first R vote since the Reagan landslide back in '84, when the whole country voted that way. This time they stuck their neck out from a big chunk of the country in voting R. And we see how the GOP Congress is repaying their risk.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-15388866025584693562017-12-15T02:15:56.967-05:002017-12-15T02:15:56.967-05:00The other reason the Dems will become less obsesse...The other reason the Dems will become less obsessed with identity politics is that the Bernie wing is the ascendant one, and they do not specialize in "fuck whitey".<br /><br />That would be the specialty of the neoliberals, like when Crooked Hillary said something to the effect of, "I don't see how breaking up the big Wall Street banks is going to end racism, sexism, or homophobia."<br /><br />Or when that black woman propagandist from the NYT asked Bernie if he was a misogynist for not getting out of the way of the First Female Nominee of a major party -- back in April, IIRC, well before the primary race was over.<br /><br />The Bernie activists have gotten so personally burned by the ID politics crowd, they aren't going to tolerate that as the main message going forward.<br /><br />Not to mention the blame game after the ID politics voters (non-whites) gave Crooked Hillary the nomination, and she went down in flames against Trump. Bernie also would have lost, but by a much smaller margin, and not embarrassingly losing Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota (Trump + third party spoiler beat Clinton).<br /><br />Trump would've kept Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, based on primary results for him vs. Bernie. Probably Iowa too, and maybe that one district in Maine. Somewhere between 273 to 280 EC votes, vs. 306 against Crooked Hillary.<br /><br />The Bernie people must already be trying to diplomatically tell the non-white side to just STFU about white privilege etc., or else a Republican is going to win again and there goes your social safety net.<br /><br />"We can address your racial issues, but we can't shout about them front and center during the campaign. That belongs to economic issues."agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-86841531212703377652017-12-15T02:01:23.282-05:002017-12-15T02:01:23.282-05:00No one said the Dems were going to deliver nationa...No one said the Dems were going to deliver nationalism. That waits for the New Second Party, which will exemplify the populist zeitgeist, but offer a nationalist rather than globalist version.<br /><br />We're just talking what things look like in the short term -- 2018 midterms, 2020 primaries and general, etc.<br /><br />The Bernie revolution is clearly where the Dems are headed -- not toward doubling down on FUCK BIGOTED DRUMPF VOTERS. Just watch any of Bernie's rallies targeting the GOP tax cut bill, and trying to win back the white working class in the Rust Belt.<br /><br />Remember, the FUCK WHITEY people targeted Bernie, hijacked his mic at a rally, and shut it down before he could speak. Black Lives Matter, an identity politics group.<br /><br />Bernie and his ilk don't hate white people, they hate big corporations and imperialist military fuck-ups.<br /><br />They differ from us in wanting "globalization from below" -- a phrase I would've endorsed back in my college days, but which I now see is impossible. We can't make the entire 10 billion people in the near future rich enough that there will be minor wage differentials all over the world.<br /><br />The Third World is going to stay poor and full of cheap labor for at least the next several centuries, maybe millennia -- we'll wait and see.<br /><br />Before and unless that happens, there are only going to be a small number of manufacturing jobs compared to the world's total population -- and we need those here, not over there.<br /><br />Not that we wish harm on Third World workers, but we're the ones who invented the Industrial Revolution, and the ones best able to carry it forward. Look at what happens to production when it goes to Mexico, China, and India. They're just not ready yet.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-60248768581965772592017-12-15T00:29:10.578-05:002017-12-15T00:29:10.578-05:00It may be the least worst option since the Repubs ...It may be the least worst option since the Repubs have proven they're going to keep destroying the historic nation with lies. <br /><br />The Dems will flood you out too though. They openly hate the historic nation.<br /><br />The weakness is people are not very tactical in their party associations. How would you get natural conservatives - normal nationalists of the recent past who are now seen by Dems as racist white supremacist sexist imperialist colonialist oppressors - to associate with Dems and influence Dem policy. They've become too different life forms. <br /><br />Thoughts On Powernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-73333912101673321332017-12-14T22:51:26.847-05:002017-12-14T22:51:26.847-05:00I'd rather be economically suckered than elect...I'd rather be economically suckered than elect the "Fuck Whitey" party, even if they're putting up southern white moderates to make us forget 2013-2017. Not a fucking chance. Franken Steynnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-65265190081444782362017-12-14T22:05:18.286-05:002017-12-14T22:05:18.286-05:00Going off the deep-end would be trusting the party...Going off the deep-end would be trusting the party of cheap labor and empire building to protect the welfare of ordinary people back in the core nation.<br /><br />We took a high-risk / high-reward chance on re-aligning the GOP toward populism and nationalism, but it ain't happening.<br /><br />No point in wallowing, just move onto Plan B -- re-aligning the other major party, whose customer service message is not "Fuck off," who is already compromising somewhat with insurgents, who is in a desperate state where they'll make concessions to get our necessary help, and whose power factions are not materially based on cheap labor and imperial expansion.<br /><br />We don't live in utopia -- time to make the best with the landscape as it currently exists, and as the near-term forecasts show it will be for the next few years at least.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-46026683978698844502017-12-14T21:58:05.246-05:002017-12-14T21:58:05.246-05:00"Yeah, when have we seen immigration accelera..."Yeah, when have we seen immigration accelerations and reductions in immigrant quality?"<br /><br />Not sure, but it seems populist movements happen with the angsty cycle(peak every 15 years). The populist revolt in the early 90s you mentioned, the WTO protests in the early 2000s, the Trump/Sanders campaigns in 2015.Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-43860184282689488042017-12-14T21:38:23.823-05:002017-12-14T21:38:23.823-05:00https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_in...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_New_York_City<br /><br />Going by this list, there are three periods of unrest.<br /><br />The 1910's/1920's (in which Italian/Jewish associated Leftist radicals caused trouble, many of these people were either immigrants or 1st gen Americans)<br /><br />The late 60's/70's ( several incidents were related to Croatia )<br /><br />The 1990's-Present (most terrorist incidents were perped by Muslims, most of whom hailed from the MENA hellhole). Given how few Muslims there are in America, to this day. they are incredibly over-represented. As I understand, Muslim immigration didn't really come to pass here until the 80's (which, BTW, was when the US started to really meddle in the MENA). It takes but a relative few Muslims to experience massive issues.Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-91271378808874741902017-12-14T21:21:31.379-05:002017-12-14T21:21:31.379-05:00Remember the "Muslims for Trump" knee-sl...Remember the "Muslims for Trump" knee-slapper at some '16 GOP event (whose name escapes me)? <br /><br />Even in the most less than lucid low-points of the 1980's GOP, can ya imagine a GOP event with a speaker representing "Russians for Reagan"? At least back then we weren't being asked to accept the presence of obvious subversives and terrorists on our soil. Over on another blog I pointed out that the lapses in national security seen in the 1990's-present day (which all coincide with GOP regimes and/or "Centrist" Dems looking the other way wrt immigration quality and quantity), had they occured in the pre-90's, would've provoked calls for accountability, commissions, and reforms; and political elites back then would've been more cooperative and sensible.<br /><br />One galling thing that I read about recently is various GOP consigliers owning stock/board membership in companies that make various kinds of security equipment. Hey, let's pretend to "do something" about security (besides, ya know, not letting numbskulls in the US to begin with) while we make $. It's akin to being "tough on crime" so that prison companies give you legal kickbacks (like post political career stocks, board membership, and speaking fees).Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-4549562257158771862017-12-14T20:52:33.836-05:002017-12-14T20:52:33.836-05:00Yeah, when have we seen immigration accelerations ...Yeah, when have we seen immigration accelerations and reductions in immigrant quality?<br /><br />The early 70's (Nixon)<br /><br />The late 80's/early 90's (Reagan/Bush)<br /><br />The 2000's (Bush II)<br /><br />Each time we're assured that the New Americans are wonderful people who, wait for it, uphold "family values" and can be "natural conservatives" (just how that didn't translate into a utopia in their homeland remains a mystery, though in the cold war we were told that we were getting the good ones and the bad commies were kept out).<br /><br />Dwelling on the sponsors or cheerleaders of a particular law really doesn't matter, since it's whoever is in power and that person (or party's) whims that counts. They can choose to enforce or not enforce the various provisions of a bill, to achieve whatever their goal is. We saw that in the late 80's, when employment sanctions against illegal employers were barely enforced (these sanctions were marketed by amnesty sponsors to "prove" that the bill wasn't a chaos inducing cheap labor grab). Some Democrats may have supported the '65 immigration act, but it's impact wasn't felt until the early 70's under Nixon. Eisenhower is the last Republican to kick some ass on the immigration front (we'll see if Trump gets the wall, which GOP traitors could turn into a turnstyle at any moment anyway), and he was a hardass Lost gen dude at a time when Americans demanded order and security (the 1950's).<br /><br />The 2000's really are the graveyard of Pax American, given the still extant military misadventures of the decade and the combination of importing countless Mexicans and MENA rejects. 9/11 (itself a consequence of Pentagon negligence) became a catalyst to accelerate every dumb idea that the GOP dabbled with to varying degrees in the post-WW2 era. Obama wanted to pare down some of this non-sense, which did happen by default (the Pentagon having less influence), but was over-ruled on some issues by Hilary (a loathsome, horrible excuse for a human being who managed to get whored out to the interest parties of both sides) and her flunkies.Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-24021851591328656702017-12-14T20:06:09.402-05:002017-12-14T20:06:09.402-05:00And you say that bullshit after he took the time t...And you say that bullshit after he took the time to explain his views, like you asked.Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-11088868902802470082017-12-14T20:02:38.081-05:002017-12-14T20:02:38.081-05:00WTF??? His analysis is spot-on.WTF??? His analysis is spot-on.Curtisnoreply@blogger.com